I/I  B  RAR.Y 

OF  THE 

UNIVLRSITY 
OF    ILLINOIS 

973.1L63 
C4L63b 
I860J 


REMOTE  STOftA6e 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


University  of  Illinois  Library 


L161— H41 


,    ITOSTER,   &    CO., 

Publishers,  Columbus,  Ohio. 


TO  THE  BOOK  TRADE  AND  NEWS  DEALERS. 


Will    liavo    Ready    Juno 

LIFE  AND  PUBLIC  SERVICES  OF 

ABRAHAM     LINCOLN 


AND 


Including    Congressional    and   other    Speeches. 
BY   W.  D.   HOWELLS,  ESQ. 

One   "Volume,  12nao.,  witli  Steel  Portraits.     I*riee,  One   33ollai». 

From  the  Daily  Press,  Cincinnati. 

"  Follett,  Foster  &  Company,  Columbus,  Ohio,  will  soon  publish  a  Biography  of  Lincoln, -written  by  Wni.  J). 
Howells,  who  is  favorably  known  by  his  poetical  contributions  to  the  '  Atlantic,'  and  his  published  poetry  in  the 
'Poems  of  Two  Friends,'  and  whose  felicitous  style  enables  us  to  say  of  his  treatment  of  this  subject,  as  Johnson 
said  when  Goldsmith  undertook  to  write  a  Natural  History — '  He  will  make  it  as  entertaining  as  a  Persian  tale.* 

*'  The  work  will  contain  Lincoln's  speeches  and  writings,  except  the  debate  with^Douglaa,  which  would  be  in- 
complete without  both  sides.  The  taste  of  Mr.  Howells  will  avoid  any  effort  to  distort  Mr.  Lincoln  into  the  rough, 
half-borse,  half-alligator  character,  whose  chief  virtue  consists  in  his  having  mauled  mils,  as  it  seems  to  be  the 
anxiety  of -trading  politicians  to  represent  him  ;  but  he  will  present  him  in  his  proper  character,  as  a  specimen  cf 
true  American  manhood  ;  one  who  has  worked  out  an  honorable  position  by  the  force  of  his  own  intellect  and 
energy  ;  who  haw  fought  the  battle  of  life  on  his  own  muscle  ;  and  with  no  aid  from  the  accidents  of  fortune,  ha* 
iitted  himself  to  occupy  the  highest  position  in  the  nation.  This  we  take  to  be  the  character  of  the  man." 

Also,  a  Campaign  Edition,  without  the  Speeches.    Paper  Cover.    Price,  25  Cents. 

(^  The  Trade  and  Agents  will  be  supplied  on  liberal  terms.  Send  in  your  or- 
ders at  once,  as  our  advance  orders  are  heavy. 

FOLLETT,  FOSTER  &  COMPANY. 


THE     OltE^T     EXPOSE 

OF    THE 

OF  OUR  GOVERNMENT  AGAINST  THE  SLAVES! 


TIKE 

EXILES   OF  FLOEIDA. 

BY  JOSHUA  R.  GIDDINGS, 

For  twenty  years  a  Member  of  Congress  from  Ohio. 


Illustrated.    >vitU    Six    JTine 

One  Volume,  12mo.    338  Pages.     Price,  $1. 


OF  THIS  BOOK  EIGHT  THOUSAND  COPIES  HAVE  BEEN  PRINTED. 


This  work  portrays  with  eminent  ability  the  crimes  committed  by  our  Government 
against  the  Maroons  who  fled  from  South  Carolina  and  other  Slave  States,  seeking 
protection  under  Spanish  laws.  It  shows  the  bad  faith  exercised  towards  the  Indians 
of  Florida,  and  presents  a  true  view  of  the  long-fought  Florida  "War. 


"The  distinguished  author  of  this  volume  has  selected  a  theme  of  peculiar  interest,  both  on  account  of  its  nov- 
elty and  its  bearing  on  several  questions  intimately  related  to  the  cause  of  humanity. 

"  No  one  who  wishes  to  comprehend  the  policy  of  the  Government  in  the  inception  and  conduct  of  the  Seminole 
wars,  should  fail  to  become  familiar  with  its  contents. 

"  Mr.  Giddings  is  entitled  to  the  gratitude  of  every  friend  of  freedom,  for  his  faithful  and  startling  revelations  , 
while  every  reader  must  admire  the  courage  and  zeal  with  which  he  has  brought  unwelcome  facts  from  their  hiding- 
places  to  the  light  of  day." — New  fork  Tribune. 

"A  cruel  story  this,  Mr.  Giddings  tells  us.  Too  cruel,  but  too  true.  It  is  full  of  pathetic  and  tragic  interest, 
and  melts  and  stirs  the  heart  at* once  with  pity  for  the  sufferers,  and  with  anger  that  sins  not,  at  their  mean  and 
ruthless  oppressors.  Every  American  citizen  should  read  it,  for  it  is  an  indictment  which  recites  crimes  which  have 
been  committed  in  his  name,  perpetrated  by  troops  and  officials  in  his  service,  and  all  done  at  his  expense. 

l(  Mr.  Giddings  has  done  his  task  admirably  well.  It  is  worthy  to  be  the  crowning  work  of  his  long  life  of  public 
service.  His  style  is  of  that  best  kind  which  is  never  remarked  upon,  but  serves  as  a  clear  medium  through  which 
the  events  he  portrays  are  seen  without  distortion  or  exaggeration.  He  has  done  his  country  one  more  service,  in 
entire  consistency  with  those  that  have  filled  up  the  whole  course  ef  his  honorable  and  beneficent  life." — Atlantic 
Monthly. 

"The  style  is  simple  and  plain,  the  sincerity  of  the  writer  most  obvious,  and  the  facts  of  great  importance  in 
many  points  of  view." — Boston  Journal. 

' '  The  work  of  Mr.  Giddings  is  written  in  a  style  at  once  simple  and  elegant.  Its  statements  bear  the  appearance 
of  authenticity,  and  are  in  most  cases  sustained  by  extracts  from,  and  reference  to,  official  authority. 

"  That  it  will  be  popular  there  is  little  doubt,  and  that  its  influence  will  be  beneficial  there  is  reason  to  believe." 
—  Cincinnati  Commercial. 

"  The  history  is  full  of  romantic  incidents,  of  heroic  daring  and  patient  suffering,  on  the  one  hand  ;  and  bloody 
carnage,  cruel  duplicity  and  lengthened  persecution,  upon  the  other." — Detroit  Tribune. 

FOLLETT,  FOSTER  &  CO.,  Publishers,  Columbus. 


THE  THREE  CONDITIONS  OF  THE  SLATE: 

In  SLA. VERY, 

In  the  FREE   STA.TES, 

And 


AS   CONTRASTED   IN  THE   STORY   OP 


ADELA,  THE  OCTOROON. 

BY  H.  L.  HOSMER,  ESQ. 

One  Volume,  12mo.     400  Pages.     Price,  $1. 


"  It  is  a  finely  wrought  story,  interspersed  with  beautiful  passages?  each  chapter  weaving  its  own  fascinating 
spell  around  the  inind,  until  the  last  paragraph  is  read."— Banner  of  Light. 

"  It  is  a  temperate  and  truthful  view  of  slave  and  '  free  negro '  life  in  the  South." — Cleveland  Herald. 
"  It  is  a  narrative  of  absorbing  interest." — Detroit  Advertiser. 

"  Depends  for  merit  and  power  to  interest,  upon  the  character  of  its  pictures,  and  its  delineation  of  character  " 
—  Chicago  Times. 

' '  In  this  volume,  the  lawyer  author  has  laid  aside  his  brief,  to  indulge  his  taste  for  literature  and  romance  ;  and 
certainly  few  of  his  profession  have  done  it  so  gracefully  or  so  successfully.  He  has  made  a  very  beautiful  and  in- 
tensely interesting  story." — Boston  Atlas. 

"  '  Adela,  The  Octoroon,'  creates  quite  a  stir  here,  as  it  is  in  gome  respects  a  political  novel,  and  Douglas,  Sew 
ard  and  other  prominent  politicians  figure  in  it.  It  ia  a  capital  thing." — Washington  Correspondent  Springfield 
(Mass.)  Republican. 

'•  The  novel  is  well  written  and  interesting." — Boston  Transcript. 


Great  Inducements  offered  Agents  to  sell  the  Above. 
(&•  PRICE,  ONLY  ONE  DOLLAR. 

15,000    Copies    Sold 

OF 

LINCOLN  AND  DOUGLAS  DEBATES. 

Every  Body  Reads  Them ! 

FOLLETT,  FOSTER  &  CO.,  Publishers,  Columbus, 


LETTER  FROM  MR.  LINCOLN, 


In  response  to  a  request  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Commit- 
tee, the  Board  of  Equalization,  and  Republican  State  Officers  of  Ohio, 
requesting  for  publication  copies  of  the  Speeches  made  in  the  Illinois 
Campaign  of  1858,  Mr.  Lincoln  made  the  following  reply  : 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILLS.,  Dec.  19,  1859. 
Messrs.  GEO.  M.  PARSONS,  and  others,  Central  Executive  Committee,  etc.: 

Gentlemen — Your  letter  of  the  7th  inst.,  accompanied  by  a  similar  one  from  the 
Governor  elect,  the  Republican  State  officers,  and  the  Republican  members  of  the 
State  Board  of  Equalization  of  Ohio,  both  requesting  of  me,  for  publication  in  per- 
manent form,  copies  of  the  political  debates  between  Senator  Douglas  and  myself  last 
year,  has  been  received.  With  my  grateful  acknowledgments  to  both  you  and  them 
for  the  very  flattering  terms  in  which  the  request  is  communicated,  I  transmit  you  the 
copies.  The  copies  I  send  you  are  as  reported  and  printed,  by  the  respective  friends 
of  Senator  Douglas  and  myself,  at  the  time — that  is,  his  by  his  friends,  and  mine  by 
mine.  It  would  be  an  unwarrantable  liberty  for  us  to  change  a  word  or  a  letter  in 
his,  and  the  changes  I  have  made  in  mine,  you  perceive,  are  verbal  only,  and  very 
few  in  number.  I  wish  the  reprint  to  be  precisely  as  the  copies  I  send,  without  any 
comment  whatever.  Yours,  very  truly, 

A.  LINCOLN, 


POLITICAL  DEBATES 


BETWEEN 


HON.  ABRAHAM    LINCOLN 


AND 


HON.  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS, 


In  the  Celebrated  Campaign  of  1858,  in  Illinois ; 


INCLUDING   THE    PRECEDING    SPEECHES    OF    EACH,  AT    CHI- 

CAGO,  SPRINGFIELD,  ETC.;  ALSO,  THE  TWO  GREAT 

SPEECHES  OF  MR.  LINCOLN  IN  OHIO,  IN  1859, 


CAREFULLY  PREPARED  BY  THE  REPORTERS  OP  EACH  PARTY,  AND  PUBLISHED 
AT  THE  TIMES  OF  THEIR  DELIVERY. 


COLUMBUS: 

FOLLETT,    FOSTER    AND    COMPANY. 
I860. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1860, 

Br  FOLLETT,  FOSTER  &  CO., 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern  District  of  Ohio. 


FOLLETT,    FOSTER  &   CO.. 

Printers,  Stereotypers,  Binders 
and  Publishers. 

COLl'Sir.US,     OHIO. 


.  7L6>3 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


FAQS 

Speech  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  at  Springfield,  June  17.  1858 I 

"        "            "        at  Chicago,  July  10,  1858 15 

"            "        at  Springfield,  July  17,  1858 54 

'         "            "        at  Columbus.  Ohio,  September,  1859 240 

"        at  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  September,  1859 255 

Speech  of  Mr.  Douglas,  at  Chicago,  July  9,  1858 5 

"  "        at  Bloomington,  July  16,  1858 24 

"        "  "        at  Springfield,  July  17,  1858 40 

Correspondence  between  Messrs.  Lincoln  and  Douglas,  preliminary  to  the  Debates 64 

First  Joint  Debate,  at  Ottawa,  August  21, 1858 65 

Mr.  Douglas's  Opening  Speech 65 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply 73 

Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder 83 

Second  Joint  Debate,  at  Freeport,  August  27,  1858 ...» , 87 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Opening  Speech 87 

Mr.  Douglas's  Reply 93 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Rejoinder 106 

Third  Joint  Debate,  at  Jonesboro,  Sept.  15,  1858 110 

Mr.  Douglas's  Speech 110 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply • 119 

Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder 130 

§    Fourth  Joint  Debate,  at  Charleston,  Sept.  18,  1858 '. 136 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Speech * 136 

Mr.  Douglas's  Reply 144 

UMr.  Lincoln's  Rejoinder 156 

Extract  from  Mr.  Trumbull's  Speech  at  Alton 161 

Extract  from  Douglas's  Speech  at  Jacksonville 165 

FHlh  Joint  Debate,  at  Galcsburgh,  Oct.  7,  1858 170 

Mr.  Douglas's  Speech 170 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply 178 

Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder 188 

*^ 

Sixth  Joint  Debate,  at  Quincy,  Oct.  13,  1858 192 

-    Mr.  Lincoln's  Speech 192 

Mr.  Douglas's  Reply 199 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Rejoinder 210 

Seventh  and  Last  Joint  Debate,  at  Alton,  Oct.  15,  1858 215 

Mr.  Douglas's  Speech 215 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply 223 

Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder 235 


1 022905 


SPEECH  OF  HON.  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN, 

At  Springfield,  June  17,  1858. 


[The  following  speech  was  delivered  at  Springfield,  111.,  at  the  close  of  the  Re- 
publican State  Convention  held  at  that  time  and  place,  and  by  which  Convention 
Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  named  as  their  candidate  for  U.  S.  Senator.  Mr.  Douglas 
was  not  present.] 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  AND  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  CONVENTION  :  If  we  could  first 
know  where  we  are,  and  whither  we  are  tending,  we  could  better  judge  what  to  do, 
and  how  to  do  it.  We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year,  since  a  policy  was  initiated 
with  the  avowed  object,  and  confident  promise,  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agita- 
tion. Under  the  operation  of  that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but 
has  constantly  augmented.  In  my  opinion,  it  will  not  cease,  until  a  crisis  shall  have 
been  reached  and  passed.  "A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  I  be- 
lieve this  government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do 
not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved — I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall — but  I  do 
expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other. 
Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it 
where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  ex- 
tinction ;  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward,  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all 
the  States,  old  as  well  as  new — North  as  well  as  South. 

Have  we  no  tendency  to  the  latter  condition  ? 

Let  any  one  who  doubts,  carefully  contemplate  that  now  almost  complete  legal 
combination — piece  of  machinery,  so  to  speak — compounded  of  the  Nebraska  doc- 
trine, and  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Let  him  consider  not  only  what  work  the  ma- 
chinery is  adapted  to  do,  and  how  well  adapted ;  but  also,  let  him  study  the  history 
of  its  construction,  and  trace,  if  he  can,  or  rather  fail,  if  he  can,  to  trace  the  evi- 
dences of  design,  and  concert  of  action,  among  its  chief  architects,  from  the  be- 
ginning. 

The  new  year  of  1854  found  slavery  excluded  from  more  than  half  the  States  by 
State  Constitutions,  and  from  most  of  the  national  territory  by  Congressional  pro- 
hibition. Four  days  later,  commenced  the  struggle  which  ended  in  repealing  that 
Congressional  prohibition.  This  opened  all  the  national  territory  to  slavery,  and 
was  the  first  point  gained. 

But.  so  far,  Congress  only  had  acted  ;  and  an  indorsement  by  the  people,  real  or 
apparent,  was  indispensable,  to  save  the  point  already  gained,  and  give  chance  for 
more. 

This  necessity  had  not  been  overlooked  ;  but  had  been  provided  for,  ns  well  a3 
might  be,  in  the  notable  argument  of  "squatter  sovereignty," otherwise  called  "sa- 


creel  right  of  self-government,"  which  latter  phrase,  though  expressive  of  the  only 
rightful  basis  of  any  government,  was  so  perverted  in  this  attempted  use  of  it  as  to 
amount  to  just  this :  That  if  any  one  man  choose  to  enslave  another,  no  third 
man  shall  be  allowed  to  object.  That  argument  was  incorporated  into  the  Nebraska 
bill  itself,  in  the  language  which  follows :  "  It  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  01 
this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  there- 
from; but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  do- 
mestic institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States."  Then  opened  the  roar  of  loose  declamation  in  favor  of  "  Squatter  Sove- 
reignty," and  "sacred  right  of  self-government."  "But,"  said  opposition  members, 
"  let  us  amend  the  bill  so  as  to  expressly  declare  that  the  people  of  the  Territory 
may  exclude  slavery."  "  Not  we,"  said  the  friends  of  the  measure ;  and  down  they 
voted  the  amendment. 

While  the  Nebraska  bill  was  passing  through  Congress,  a  law  case  involving  the 
question  of  a  negro's  freedom,  by  reason  of  his  owner  having  voluntarily  taken  him 
first  into  a  free  State  and  then  into  a  Territory  covered  by  the  Congressional  prohi- 
bition, and  held  him  as  a  slave  for  a  long  time  in  each,  was  passing  through  the  U. 
S.  Circuit  Court  for  the  District  of  Missouri ;  and  both  Nebraska  bill  and  law  suit 
were  brought  to  a  decision  in  the  same  month  of  May,  1854.  The  negro's  name 
was  "  Dred  Scott,"  which  name  now  designates  the  decision  finally  made  in  the  case. 
Before  the  then  next  Presidential  election,  the  law  case  came  to,  and  was  argued  in, 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States ;  but  the  decision  of  it  was  deferred  until 
after  the  election.  Still,  before  the  election,  Senator  Trumbull,  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate,  requested  the  leading  advocate  of  the  Nebraska  bill  to  state  his  opinion 
whether  the  people  of  a  Territory  can  constitutionally  exclude  slavery  from  their 
limits  ;  and  the  latter  answers :  "  That  is  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court." 

The  election  came.  Mr.  Buchanan  was  elected,  and  the  indorsement,  such  as  it 
was,  secured.  That  was  the  second  point  gained.  The  indorsement,  however,  fell 
short  of  a  clear  popular  majority  by  nearly  four  hundred  thousand  votes,  and  so, 
perhaps,  was  not  overwhelmingly  reliable  and  satisfactory.  The  outgoing  President, 
in  his  last  annual  message,  as  impressively  as  possible  echoed  back  upon  the  people 
the  weight  and  authority  of  the  indorsement.  The  Supreme  Court  met  again  ;  did 
not  announce  their  decision,  but  ordered  a  re-argument.  The  Presidential  inaugu- 
ration came,  and  still  no  decision  of  the  court ;  but  the  incoming  President  in  his 
inaugural  address,  fervently  exhorted  the  people  to  abide  by  the  forthcoming  decision, 
whatever  it  might  be.  Then,  in  a  few  days,  came  the  decision. 

The  reputed  author  of  the  Nebraska  bill  finds  an  early  occasion  to  make  a 
speech  at  this  capital  indorsing  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  vehemently  denounc- 
ing all  opposition  to  it.  The  new  President,  too,  seizes  the  early  occasion  of  the 
Silliman  letter  to  indorse  and  strongly  construe  that  decision,  and  to  express  his 
astonishment  that  any  different  view  had  ever  been  entertained  ! 

At  length  a  squabble  springs  up  between  the  President  and  the  author  of  the 
Nebraska  bill,  on  the  mere  question  of  fact,  whether  the  Lecompton  Constitution 
was  or  was  not,  in  any  just  sense,  made  by  the  people  of  Kansas  ;  and  in  that  quar- 
rel the  latter  declares  that  all  he  wants  is  a  fair  vote  for  the  people,  and  that 
he  (-ares  not  whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted  up.  I  do  not  understand  his 
declaration  that  he  cares  not  whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted  up,  to  be  in- 
tended by  him  other  than  as  an  apt  definition  of  the  policy  he  would  impress 
upon  the  public  mind — the  principle  for  which  he  declares  he  has  suffered 


"  squatter  sovereignty  "  squatted  out  of  existence,  tumbled  down  like  temporary 
scaffolding — like  the  mould  at  the  foundry  served  through  one  blast  and  fell  back 
into  loose  sand — helped  to  carry  an  election,  and  then  was  kicked  to  the  winds. 
His  late  joint  struggle  with  the  Republicans,  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution, 


involves  nothing  of  the  original  Nebraska  doctrine.  That  struggle  was  made  on  a 
point — the  right  of  a  people  to  make  their  own  constitution  —  upon  which  he 
and  the:  Republicans  have  never  differed. 

The  several  points  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  in  connection  with  Senator  Douglas's 
'*  cure  not "  policy,  constitute  the  piece  of  machinery,  in  its  present  state  of  advance- 
ment. This  was  the  third  point  gained.  The  working  points  of  that  machinery  are : 

First,  That  no  negro  slave,  imported  as  such  from  Africa,  and  no  descendant  of 
such  slave?  can  ever  be  a  citizen  of  any  State,  in  the  sense  of  that  term  as  used  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  This  point  is  made  in  order  to  deprive  the 
negro,  in  every  possible  event,  of  the  benefit  of  that  provision  of  the  United  States 
Constitution,  which  declares  that  "The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all 
privileges  an/1  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States." 

Secondly,  That  "  subject  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,"  neither  Con- 
gress nor  a  Territorial  Legislature  can  exclude  slavery  from  any  United  States  terri- 
tory. This  point  is  made  in  order  that  individual  men  may  fill  up  the  Territories 
with  slaves,  without  danger  of  losing  them  as  property,  and  thus  to  enhance  the 
chances  of  permanency  to  the  institution  through  all  the  future. 

Thirdly,  That  whether  the  holding  a  negro  in  actual  slavery  in  a  free  State,  makes 
him  free,  as  against  the  holder,  the  United  States  courts  will  not  decide,  but  will  leave 
to  be  decided  by  the  courts  of  any  slave  State  the  negro  may  be  forced  into  by  the 
master.  This  point  is  made,  not  to  be  pressed  immediately ;  but,  if  acquiesced  in 
for  awhile,  and  apparently  indorsed  by  the  people  at  an  election,  then  to  sustain  the 
logical  conclusion  that  what  Dred  Scott's  master  might  lawfully  do  with  Dred  Scott, 
in  the  free  State  of  Illinois,  every  other  master  may  lawfully  do  with  any  other  one, 
or  one  thousand  slaves,  in  Illinois,  or  in  any  other  free  State. 

Auxiliary  to  all  this,  and  working  hand  in  hand  with  it,  the  Nebraska  doctrine,  or 
what  is  left  of  it,  is  to  educate  and  mould  public  opinion,  at  least  Northern  public 
opinion,  not  to  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted  up.  This  shows  exactly 
where  we  now  are  ;  and  partially,  also,  whither  we  are  tending. 

It  will  throw  additional  light  on  the  latter,  to  go  back,  and  run  the  mind  over  the 
string  of  historical  facts  already  stated.  Several  things  will  now  appear  less  dark  and 
mysterious  than  they  did  when  thuy  were  transpiring.  The  people  were  to  be  left "  per- 
fectly free,"  "  subject  only  to  the  Constitution."  What  the  Constitution  had  to  do 
with  it,  outsiders  could  not  then  see.  Plainly  enough  now,  it  was  an  exactly  fitted 
niche,  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision  to  afterward  come  in,  and  declare  the  perfect  free- 
dom of  the  people  to  be  just  no  freedom  at  all.  Why  was  the  amendment,  expressly 
declaring  the  right  of  the  people,  voted  down  ?  Plainly  enough  now  :  the  adoption 
of  it  would  have  spoiled  the  niche  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Why  was  the  court 
decision  held  up  ?  Why  even  a  Senator's  individual  opinion  withheld,  till  after  the 
Presidential  election  ?  Plainly  enough  now :  the  speaking  out  then  would  have  dam- 
aged the  perfectly  free  argument  upon  which  the  election  was  to  be  carried.  Why 
the  outgoing  President's  felicitation  on  the  indorsement  ?  Why  the  delay  of  a  re* 
argument?  Why  the  incoming  President's  advance  exhortation  in  favor  of  the  de- 
cision ?  These  things  look  like  the  cautious  patting  and  petting  of  a  spirited  horse 
preparatory  to  mounting  him,  when  it  is  dreaded  that  he  may  give  the  rider  a  fall. 
And  why  the  hasty  after-indorsement  of  the  decision  by  the  President  and  others? 

We  cannot  absolutely  know  that  all  these  exact  adaptations  are  the  result  of  pre- 
concert. But  when  we  see  a  lot  of  framed  timbers,  different  portions  of  which  we 
know  have  been  gotten  out  at  different  times  and  places  and  by  different  workmen — 
Stephen,  Franklin,  Roger  and  James,  for  instance — and  when  we  see  these  timbers 
joined  together,  and  see  they  exactly  make  the  frame  of  a  house  or  a  mill,  all  the 
tenons  and  mortices  exactly  fitting,  and  all  the  lengths  and  proportions  of  the  differ- 
ent pieces  exactly  adapted  to  their  respective  placed,  and  not  a  piece  too  many  or  too 
few — not  omitting  even  scaffolding — or,  if  a  single  piece  be  lacking,  we  see  the  place 
in  the  frame  exactly  fitted  and  propjuvd  yet  to  bring  Mich  piece  in — in  such  a  au?e, 
we  find  it  impossible  not  to  believe  thai  Stephen  and  Franklin  and  Roger  and  James 


4 

all  understood  one  another  from  the  beginning,  and  all  worked  upon  a  common  plan 
or  draft  drawn  up  before  the  first  blow  was  struck. 

It  should  not  be  overlooked  that,  by  the  Nebraska  bill,  the  people  of  a  State  as 
well  as  Territory,  were  to  be  left  "perfectly  free,"  "subject  only  to  the  Constitution." 
Why  mention  a  State  ?  They  were  legislating  for  Territories,  and  not  for  or  about 
States.  Certainly  the  people  of  a  State  are  and  ought  to  be  subject  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States ;  but  why  is  mention  of  this  lugged  into  this  merely  Terri- 
torial law  ?  Why  are  the  people  of  a  Territory  and  the  people  of  a  State  therein 
lumped  together,  and  their  relation  to  the  Constitution  therein  treated  as  being  pro 
cisely  the  same  ?  While  the  opinion  of  the  court,  by  Chief  Justice  Taney.  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case,  and  the  separate  opinions  of  all  the  concurring  Judges,  expressly 
declare  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  neither  permits  Congress  nor  a 
Territorial  Legislature  to  exclude  slavery  from  any  United  States  Territory,  they  all 
omit  to  declare  whether  or  not  the  same  Constitution  permits  a  State,  or  the  people 
of  a  State,  to  exclude  it.  Possibly,  this  is  a  mere  omission ;  but  who  can  be  quite 
sure,  if  Mr  Lean  or  Curtis  had  sought  to  get  into  the  opinion  a  declaration  of  unlim- 
ited power  in  the  people  of  a  State  to  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  just  as  Chase 
and  Mace  sought  to  get  such  declaration,  in  behalf  of  the  people  of  a  Territory,  into 
the  Nebraska  bill ; — I  ask,  who  can  be  quite  sure  that  it  would  not  have  been  voted 
down  in  the  one  case  as  it  had  been  in  the  other  ?  The  nearest  approach  to  the  point 
of  declaring  the  power  of  a  State  over  slavery,  is  made  by  Judge  Nelson.  He  ap- 
proaches it  more  than  once,  using  the  precise  idea,  and  almost  the  language,  too,  of 
the  Nebraska  act.  On  one  occasion,  his  exact  language  is,  "except  in  cases  where 
the  power  is  restrained  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  law  of  the 
State  is  supreme  over  the  subject  of  slavery  within  its  jurisdiction."  In  what  cases 
the  power  of  the  States  is  so  restrained  by  the  United  States  Constitution,  is  left  an 
open  question,  precisely  as  the  same  question,  as  to  the  restraint  on  the  power  of  the 
Territories,  was  left  open  in  the  Nebraska  act.  Put  this  and  that  together,  and  we 
have  another  nice  little  niche,  which  we  may,  ere  long,  see  filled  with  another  Su- 
preme Court  decision,  declaring  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  does  not 
permit  a  State  to  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits.  And  this  may  especially  be  ex- 
pected if  the  doctrine  of  "  care  not  whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted  up," 
shall  gain  upon  the  public  mind  sufficiently  to  give  promise  that  such  a  decision  can 
be  maintained  when  made. 

Such  a  decision  is  all  that  slavery  now  lacks  of  being  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States. 
Welcome,  or  unwelcome,  such  decision  is  probably  coming,  and  will  soon  be  upon  us, 
unless  the  power  of  the  present  political  dynasty  shall  be  met  and  overthrown.  We 
shall  lie  down  pleasantly  dreaming  that  the  people  of  Missouri  are  on  the  verge  of 
making  their  State  free,  and  we  shall  awake  to  the  reality  instead,  that  the  Supreme 
Court  has  made  Illinois  a  slave  State.  To  meet  and  overthrow  the  power  of  that 
dynasty,  is  the  work  now  before  all  those  who  would  prevent  that  consummation. 
That  is  what  we  have  to  do.  How  can  we  best  do  it  ? 

There  are  those  who  denounce  us  openly  to  their  own  friends,  and  yet  whisper  us 
softly,  that  Senator  Douglas  is  the  aptest  instrument  there  is  with  which  to  affect  that 
object.  They  wish  us  to  infer  all,  from  the  fact  that  he  now  has  a  little  quarrel  with 
the  present  head  of  the  dynasty ;  and  that  he  has  regularly  voted  with  us  on  a  single 
point,  upon  which  he  and  we  have  never  differed.  They  remind  us  that  he  is  a 
great  man,  and  that  the  largest  of  us  are  very  small  ones.  Let  this  be  granted. 
But  "  a  living  dog  is  better  than  a  dead  lion."  Judge  Douglas,  if  not  a  dead  lion, 
for  this  work,  is  at  least  a  caged  and  toothless  one.  How  can  he  oppose  the  advances 
of  slavery?  He  don't  care  anything  about  it.  His  avowed  mission  is  impressing 
the  "  public  heart "  to  care  nothing  about  it.  A  leading  Douglas  democratic  news- 
paper thinks  Douglas's  superior  talent  will  be  needed  to  resist  the  revival  of  the  Afri- 
can slave  trade.  Does  Douglas  believe  an  effort  to  revive  that  trade  is  approaching? 
He  has  not  said  so.  Does  he  really  think  so?  But  if  it  is,  how  can  he  resist  it? 
For  years  he  has  labored  to  prove  it  a  sacred  right  of  white  men  to  take  negro  slaves 


into  the  new  Territories.  Can  lie  possibly  show  that  it  is  less  a  sacred  right  to  buy 
them  where  they  can  be  bought  cheapest?  And  unquestionably  they  can  be  bought 
cheaper  in  Africa  than  in  Virginia.  He  has  done  all  in  his  power  to  reduce  the 
whole  question  of  slavery  to  one  of  a  mere  right  of  property ;  and  as  such,  how  can 
he  oppose  the  foreign  slave  trade — how  can  he  refuse  that  trade  in  that  "  property  * 
shall  be  " perfectly  free " — unless  he  does  it  as  a  protection  to  the  home  production? 
And  as  the  home  producers  will  probably  not  ask  the  protection,  he  will  be  wholly 
without  a  ground  of  opposition. 

Senator  Douglas  holds,  we  know,  that  a  man  may  rightfully  be  wiser  to-day  than 
he  was  yesterday — that  he  may  rightfully  change  when  he  finds  himself  wrong. 
But  can  we,  for  that  reason,  run  ahead,  and  infer  that  he  will  make  any  particular 
change,  of  which  he,  himself,  has  given  no  intimation  ?  Can  we  safely  base  our  ac- 
tion upon  any  such  vague  inference  ?  Now,  as  ever,  I  wish  not  to  misrepresent 
Judge  Douglas's  position,  question  his  motives,  or  do  aught  that  can  be  personally 
offensive  to  him.  Whenever,  if  ever,  he  and  we  can  come  together  on  principle  so 
that  our  cause  may  have  assistance  from  his  great  ability,  I  hope  to  have  interposed 
no  adventitious  obstacle.  But  clearly,  he  is  not  now  with  us — he  does  not  pretend 
to  be — he  does  not  promise  ever  to  be. 

Our  cause,  then,  must  be  intrusted  to,  and  conducted  by,  its  own  undoubted  friends — 
those  whose  hands  are  free,  whose  hearts  are  in  the  work — who  do  care  for  the  result* 
Two  years  ago  the  Republicans  of  the  nation  mustered  over  thirteen  hundred  thou- 
sand strong.  We  did  this  under  the  single  impulse  of  resistance  to  a  common  danger, 
with  every  external  circumstance  against  us.  Of  strange,  discordant,  and  even  hos- 
tile elements,  we  gathered  from  the  four  winds,  and  formed  and  fought  the  battle 
through,  under  the  constant  hot  fire  of  a  disciplined,  proud  and  pampered  enemy. 
Did  we  brave  all  then,  to  falter  now  ? — now,  when  that  same  enemy  is  wavering, 
dissevered  and  belligerent  ?  The  result  is  not  doubtful.  We  shall  not  fail — if  we 
stand  firm,  we  shall  not  fail.  Wise  counsels  may  accelerate,  or  mistakes  delay  it* 
but,  sooner  or  later,  the  victory  is  sure  to  come. 


*     SPEECH  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS, 

On  the  occasion  of  his  Public  Reception  at  Chicago,  Friday  evening,  July  Qth,  1858* 
**  (Mr.  Lincoln  was  present.) 


MR.  DOUGLAS  said : 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS — I  can  find  no  language  which  can  ade- 
quately express  my  profound  gratitude  for  the  magnificent  welcome  which  you  have 
extended  to  me  on  this  occasion.  This  vast  sea  of  human  faces  indicates  how  deep 
an  interest  is  felt  by  our  people  in  the  great  questions  which  agitate  the  public 
mind,  and  which  underlie  the  foundations  of  our  free  institutions.  A  reception  like 
this,  so  great  in  numbers  that  no  human  voice  can  be  heard  to  its  countless  thousands 
— so  enthusiastic  that  no  one  individual  can  be  the  object  of  such  enthusiasm — 
clearly  shows  that  there  is  some  great  principle  which  sinks  deep  in  the  heart  of  the 
masses,  and  involves  the  rights  and  the  liberties  of  a  whole  people,  that  has  brought 
you  together  with  a  unanimity  and  a  cordiality  never  before  excelled,  if,  indeed, 
equaled  on  any  occasion.  I  have  not  the  vanity  to  believe  that  it  is  any  personal 
compliment  to  me. 

It  is  an  expression  of  your  devotion  to  that  great  principle  of  self-government,  to 


which  my  life  for  many  years  past  has  been,  and  in  the  future  will  be,  devoted.  If 
there  is  any  one  principle  dearer  and  more  sacred  than  all  others  in  free  governments, 
it  is  that  which  asserts  the  exclusive  right  of  a  free  people  to  form  and  adopt  their 
own  fundamental  law,  and  to  manage  and  regulate  their  own  internal  affairs  and  do- 
mestic institutions. 

When  I  found  an  effort  being  made  during  the  recent  session  of  Congress  to  force 
a  Constitution  upon  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  will,  and  to  force  that  State 
into  the  Union  with  a  Constitution  which  her  people  had  rejected  by  more  than  10,000, 
I  felt  bound  us  a  man  of  honor  and  a  representative  of  Illinois,  bound  by  every  con- 
sideration of  duty,  of  fidelity,  and  of  patriotism,  to  resist  to  the  utmost  of  my  power 
the  consummation  of  that  fraud.  With  others  I  did  resist  it,  and  resisted  it  success- 
fully until  the  attempt  was  abandoned.  We  forced  them  to  refer  that  Constitution 
back  to  the  people  of  Kansas,  to  be  accepted  or  rejected  as  they  shall  decide  at  an 
election,  which  is  fixed  for  the  first  Monday  in  August  next.  It  is  true  that  the  modi* 
of  reference,  and  the  form  of  the  submission,  was  not  such  as  I  could  sanction  with 
my  vote,  for  the  reason  that  it  discriminated  between  Free  States  and  Slave  States ; 
providing  that  if  Kansas  consented  to  come  in  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution  it 
should  be  received  with  a  population  of  35,000 ;  but  that  if  she  demanded  another 
Constitution,  more  consistent  with  the  sentiments  of  her  people  and  their  feelings, 
that  it  should  not  be  received  into  the  Union  until  she  has  93,420  inhabitants.  I  did 
not  consider  that  mode  of  submission  fair,  for  the  reason  that  any  election  is  a  mock- 
ery which  is  not  free — that  any  election  is  a  fraud  upon  the  rights  of  the  people  which 
holds  out  inducements  for  affirmative  votes,  and  threatens  penalties  for  negative  votes. 
But  whilst  I  was  not  satisfied  with  the  mode  of  submission,  whilst  I  resisted  it  to  the 
last,  demanding  a  fair,  a  just,  a  free  mode  of  submission,  still,  when  the  law  passed 
placing  it  within  the  power  of  the  people  of  Kansas  at  that  election  to  reject  the  Le- 
compton Constitution,  and  then  make  another  in  harmony  with  their  principles  and 
their  opinions,  I  did  not  believe  that  either  the  penalties  on  the  one  hand,  or  the  in- 
ducements on  the  other,  would  force  that  people  to  accept  a  Constitution  to  which 
they  are  irreconcilably  opposed.  All  I  can  say  is,  that  if  their  votes  can  be  control- 
led by  such  considerations,  all  the  sympathy  which  has  been  expended  upon  them  has 
been  misplaced,  and  all  the  efforts  that  have  been  made  in  defense  of  their  right  to 
self-government  have  been  made  in  an  unworthy  cause. 

Hence,  my  friends,  I  regard  the  Lecompton  battle  as  having  been  fought  and  the 
victory  won,  because  the  arrogant  demand  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  under  the  Le- 
compton Constitution  unconditionally,  whether  her  people  wanted  it  or  not,  has  been 
abandoned,  and  the  principle  which  recognizes  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide  for 
themselves  has  been  submitted  in  its  place. 

Fellow-citizens :  While  I  devoted  my  best  energies — all  my  energies,  mental  and 
physical — to  the  vindication  of  the  great  principle,  and  whilst  the  result  has  been 
such  as  will  enable  the  people  of  Kansas  to  come  into  the  Union,  with  such  a  Consti- 
tution as  they  desire,  yet  the  credit  of  this  great  moral  victory  is  to  be  divided  among 
a  large  number  of  men  of  various  and  different  political  creeds.  I  was  rejoiced  when 
I  found  in  this  great  contest  the  Republican  party  coming  up  manfully  and  sustaining 
the  principle  that  the  people  of  each  Territory,  when  coming  into  the  Union,  have;  the 
right  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their 
limits.  I  have  seen  the  time  when  that  principle  was  controverted.  I  have  seen  the 
time  when  all  parties  did  not  recognize  the  right  of  a  people  to  have  slavery  or  free- 
dom, to  tolerate  or  prohibit  slavery,  as  they  deemed  best;  but  claimed  that  power  for 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  regardless  of  the  wishes  of  the  people  to  be  affec- 
ted by  it,  and  when  I  found  upon  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill  the  Republicans 
and  Americans  of  the  North,  and  I  may  say,  too,  some  glorious  Americans  and  old 
line  Whigs  from  the  South,  like  Crittenden  and  his  patriotic  associates,  joined  with 
a  port  ion  of  the  Democracy  to  carry  out  and  vindicate  the  right  of  the  people  to  de- 
title  whether  slavery  should  or  should  not  exist  within  the  limits  of  Kansas,  I  was 


rejoiced  within  my  secret  soul,  for  I  saw  an  indication  that  the  American  people, 
when  they  come  to  understand  the  principle,  would  give  it  their  cordial  support. 

The  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill  was  as  fair  and  as  perfect  an  exposition  of  the  doc- 
trine of  popular  sovereignty  as  could  be  carried  out  by  any  bill  that  man  ever  devised. 
It  proposed  to  refer  the  Lecompton  Constitution  back  to  the  people  of  Kansas,  and 
give  them  the  right  to  accept  or  reject  it  as  they  pleased,  at  a  fair  election,  held  in 
pursuance  of  law,  and  in  the  event  of  their  rejecting  it  and  forming  another  in  its 
stead,  to  permit  them  to  come  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
States.  It  was  fair  and  just  in  all  of  its  provisions!  I  gave  it  my  cordial  support, 
and  was  rejoiced  when  I  found  that  it  passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  at 
one  time,  I  entertained  high  hope  that  it  would  pass  the  Senate. 

I  regard  the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  as  having  been  vindicated  and 
made  triumphant  in  this  land,  as  a  permanent  rule  of  public  policy  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  Territories  and  the  admission  of  new  States.  Illinois  took  her  position  upon 
this  principle  many  years  ago.  You  all  recollect  that  in  1850,  after  the  passage  of 
the  Compromise  measures  of  that  year,  when  I  returned  to  my  home,  there  was  great 
dissatisfaction  expressed  at  my  course  in  supporting  those  measures.  I  appeared  be- 
fore the  people  of  Chicago  at  a  mass  meeting,  and  vindicated  each  and  every  one  of 
those  measures ;  and  by  reference  to  my  speech  on  that  occasion,  which  was  printed 
and  circulated  broad-cast  throughout  the  State  at  the  time,  you  will  find  that  I  then 
and  there  said  that  those  measures  were  all  founded  upon  the  great  principle  that  ev- 
ery people  ought  to  possess  the  right  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  insti- 
tutions in  their  own  way,  and  that  that  right  being  possessed  by  the  people  of  the 
States,  I  saw  no  reason  why  the  same  principle  should  not  be  extended  to  all  of  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States.  A  general  election  was  held  in  this  State  a  few 
months  afterward,  for  members  of  the  Legislature,  pending  which  all  these  questions 
were  thoroughly  canvassed  and  discusssed,  and  the  nominees  of  the  different  parties 
instructed  in  regard  to  the  wishes  of  their  constituents  upon  them.  When  that  elec- 
tion was  over,  and  the  Legislature  assembled,  they  proceeded  to  consider  the  merits 
of  those  Compromise  measures  and  the  principles  upon  which  they  were  predicated. 
And  what  was  the  result  ot  their  action  ?  They  passed  resolutions,  first  repealing 
the  Wilmot  proviso  instructions,  and  in  lieu  thereof  adopted  another  resolution,  in 
which  they  declared  the  great  principle  which  asserts  the  right  of  the  people  to  make 
their  own  form  of  government  and  establish  their  own  institutions.  That  resolution 
is  as  follows : 

Resolved,  That  our  liberty  and  independence  are  based  upon  the  right  of  the  people  to  form  for 
themselves  such  a  government  as  they  may  choose  ;  that  this  great  principle,  the  birthright  of 
freemen,  the  gift  of  Heaven,  secured  to  us  by  the  blood  of  our  ancestors,  ought  to  be  secured  to 
future  generations,  and  no  limitation  ought  to  be  applied  to  this  power  in  the  organization  of  any 
Territory  of  the  United  States,  of  either  Territorial  Government  or  State  Constitution,  provided  the 
Government  so  established  shall  be  .Republican,  and  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
Unikd  States. 

That  resolution,  declaring  the  great  principle  of  self-government  as  applicable  to 
the  Territories  and  new  States,  passed  the  House  of  Representatives  of  this  State 
by  a  vote  of  sixty-one  in  the  affirmative,  to  only  four  in  the  negative.  Thus  you 
tind  that  an  expression  of  public  opinion,  enlightened,  educated,  intelligent  public 
opinion  on  this  question  by  the  representatives  of  Illinois,  in  1851,  approaches  near- 
er to  unanimity  than  has  ever  been  obtained  on  any  controverted  question.  That 
resolution  was  entered  on  the  journal  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and 
it  has  remained  there  from  that  day  to  this,  a  standing  instruction  to  her  Senators 
and  a  request  to  her  Representatives  in  Congress,  to  carry  out  that  principle  in  all 
future  cases.  Illinois,  therefore,  stands  pre-eminent  as  the  State  which  stepped  for- 
ward early  and  established  a  platform  applicable  to  this  slavery  question,  concurred  in 
alike  by  Whigs  and  Democrats,  in  which  it  was  declared  to  be  the  wish  of  our  people 
that  thereafter  the  people  of  the  Territories  should  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and 


8 

regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  and  that  no  limitation  should  b« 
placed  upon  that  right  in  any  form. 

Hence  what  was  my  duty,  in  1854,  when  it  became  necessary  to  bring  forward 
a  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska?  Was  it  not 
my  duty,  in  obedience  to  the  Illinois  platform,  to  your  standing  instructions  to  your 
Senators,  adopted  with  almost  entire  unanimity,  to  incorporate  in  that  bill  the  great 
principle  of  self-government,  declaring  that  it  was  "the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
the  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or  Territory,  or  to  exclude  it  therefrom, 
but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  in- 
stitutions in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ?H 
I  did  incorporate  that  principle  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  and  perhaps  I  did  as 
much  as  any  living  man  in  the  enactment  of  that  bill,  thus  establishing  the  doctrine 
in  the  public  policy  of  the  country.  I  then  defended  that  principle  against  assaults 
from  one  section  of  the  Union.  During  this  last  winter  it  became  my  duty  to  vindi- 
cate it  against  assaults  from  the  other  section  of  the  Union.  I  vindicated  it  boldly 
and  fearlessly,  as  the  people  of  Chicago  can  bear  witness,  when  it  was  assailed  by 
Freesoilers;  and  during  this  winter  I  vindicated  and  defended  it  as  boldly  and  fear- 
lessly when  it  was  attempted  to  be  violated  by  the  almost  unite  1  South.  I  pledged 
myself  to  you  on  every  stump  in  Illinois  in  1854,  I  pledged  myself  to  the  people  of 
other  States,  North  and  South — wherever  I  spoke — and  in  the  United  States  Senate 
and  elsewhere,  in  every  form  in  which  I  could  reach  the  public  mind  or  the  public 
ear,  I  gave  the  pledge  that  I,  so  far  as  the  power  should  be  in  my  hands,  would  vin- 
dicate the  principle  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  form  their  own  institutions,  to  es- 
tablish Free  States  or  Slave  States  as  they  chose,  and  that  that  principle  should  never 
be  violated  cither  by  fraud,  by  violence,  by  circumvention,  or  by  any  other  means,  if 
it  was  in  my  power  to  prevent  it.  I  now  submit  to  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  wheth- 
er I  have  not  redeemed  that  pledge  in  good  faith !  Yes,  my  friends,  I  have  re- 
deemed it  in  good  faith,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  heart-felt  gratification  to  me  to  s^e  these 
assembled  thousands  here  to-night  bearing  their  testimony  to  the  fidelity  with  which 
I  have  advocated  that  principle  and  redeemed  my  pledges  in  connection  with  it 

I  will  be  entirely  frank  with  you.  My  object  was  to  secure  the  right  of  the  peo- 
ple of  each  State  and  of  each  Territory,  North  or  South,  to  decide  the  question  for 
themselves,  to  have  slavery  or  not,  just  as  they  chose ;  and  my  opposition  to  the  Le- 
compton  Constitution  was  not  predicated  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  a  pro-slavery 
Constitution,  nor  would  my  action  have  been  different  had  it  been  a  Freesoil  Consti- 
tion.  My  speech  against  the  Lecompton  fraud  was  made  on  the  9th  of  December, 
while  the  vote  on  the  slavery  clause  in  that  Constitution  was  not  taken  until  the  21st 
of  the  same  month,  nearly  two  weeks  after.  I  made  my  speech  against  the  Le- 
compton monstrosity  solely  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  violation  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  free  government ;  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the 
people  of  Kansas ;  that  it  did  not  embody  their  will ;  that  they  were  averse  to  it ; 
and  hence  I  denied  the  right  of  Congress  to  force  it  upon  them,  either  as  a  free  State 
or  a  slave  State.  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  force  a  slaveholding  State  upon 
an  unwilling  people.  I  deny  their  right  to  force  a  free  State  upon  an  unwilling  peo- 
ple. I  deny  their  right  to  force  a  good  thing  upon  a  people  who  are  unwilling  to 
receive  it.  The  great  principle  is  the  right  of  every  community  to  judge  and  decide 
for  itself,  whether  a  thing  is  right  or  wrong,  whether  it  would  be  good  or  evil 
for  them  to  adopt  it ;  and  the  right  of  free  action,  the  right  of  free  thought,  the 
right  of  free  judgment  upon  the  question  is  dearer  to  every  true  American  than  any 
other  under  a  free  government.  My  objection  to  the  Lecompton  contrivance  was,  that 
it  undertook  to  put  a  Constitution  on  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  will,  in  oppo- 
sition to  their  wishes,  and  thus  violated  the  great  principle  upon  which  all  our  insti- 
tutions rest.  It  is  no  answer  to  this  argument  to  say  that  slavery  is  an  evil,  and 
hence  should  not  be  tolerated.  You  must  allow  the  people  to  decide  for  themselves 
whether  it  is  a  good  or  an  evil.  You  allow  them  to  decide  for  themselves 
whether  they  desire  a  Maine  liquor  law  or  not;  you  allow  them  to  decide  for  them- 


selves  what  kind  of  common  schools  they  will  have ;  what  system  of  banking  they 
will  adopt,  or  whether  they  will  adopt  any  at  all ;  you  allow  them  to  decide  for  them- 
selves the  relations  between  husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child,  guardian  and  ward ; 
in  fact,  you  allow  them  to  decide  for  themselves  all  other  questions,  and  why  not  upon 
this  question  ?  Whenever  you  put  a  limitation  upon  the  right  of  any  people  to  de- 
cide what  laws  they  want,  you  have  destroyed  the  fundamental  principle  cf  self-gov- 
ernment. 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  perhaps,  it  will  not  be  improper  for  me  on  this  oc- 
casion to  allude  to  the  position  of  those  who  have  chosen  to  arraign  my  conduct  on 
tins  same  subject.  I  have  observed  from  the  public  prints,  that  but  a  few  days  ago 
the  Republican  party  of  the  State  of  Illinois  assembled  in  Convention  at  Springfield, 
and  not  only  laid  down  their  platform,  but  nominated  a  candidate  for  the  United 
States  Senate,  as  my  successor.  I  take  great  pleasure  in  saying  that  I  have  known, 
personally  and  intimately,  for  about  a  quarter  of  a  century,  the  worthy  gentleman 
who  has  been  nominated  for  my  place,  and  I  will  say  that  I  regard  him  as  a  kind, 
amiable,  and  intelligent  gentleman,  a  good  citizen  and  an  honorable  opponent ;  and 
whatever  issue  I  may  have  with  him  will  be  of  principle,  and  not  involving  personal- 
ities. Mr.  Lincoln  made  a  speech  before  that  Republican  Convention  which  unan- 
imously nominated  him  for  the  Senate — a  speech  evidently  well  prepared  and  care- 
fully written — in  which  he  states  the  basis  upon  which  he  proposes  to  carry  on  the 
campaign  during  this  summer.  In  it  he  lays  down  two  distinct  propositions  which  I 
shall  notice,  and  upon  which  I  shall  take  a  direct  and  bold  issue  with  him. 

His  first  and  main  proposition  I  will  give  in  his  own  language,  scripture  quotations 
and  all  [laughter];  I  give  his  exact  language — "  'A  house  divided  against  itself  can- 
not stand.'  I  believe  this  government  cannot  endure,  permanently,  half  slave  and 
half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved.  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to 
fall ;  but  I  do  expect  it  to  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all 
the  other." 

In  other  words,  Mr.  Lincoln  asserts,  as  a  fundamental  principle  of  this  government, 
that  there  must  be  uniformity  in  the  local  laws  and  domestic  institutions  of  each  and 
all  the  States  of  the  Union ;  and  he  therefore  invites  all  the  non-slaveholding  States 
to  band  together,  organize  as  one  body,  and  make  war  upon  slavery  in  Kentucky, 
upon  slavery  in  Virginia,  upon  the  Carolinas,  upon  slavery  in  all  of  the  slaveholding 
States  in  this  Union,  and  to  persevere  in  that  war  until  it  shall  be  extermina- 
ted. He  then  notifies  the  slaveholding  States  to  stand  together  as  a  unit  and  make  an 
aggressive  war  upon  the  free  States  of  this  Union  with  a  view  of  establishing  slavery 
in  them  all ;  of  forcing  it  upon  Illinois,  of  forcing  it  upon  New  York,  upon  New 
England,  and  upon  every  other  free  State,  and  that  they  shall  keep  up  the  warfare 
until  it  has  been  formally  established  in  them  all.  In  other  words,  Mr.  Lincoln  advo- 
cates boldly  and  clearly  a  war  of  sections,  a  war  of  the  North  against  the  South,  of 
the  free  States  against  the  slave  States — a  war  of  extermination — to  be  continued 
relentlessly  until  the  one  or  the  other  shall  be  subdued,  and  all  the  States  shall  either 
become  free  or  become  slave. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  must  say  to  you  frankly,  that  I  take  bold,  unqualified  issue 
with  him  upon  that  principle.  I  assert  that  it  is  neither  desirable  nor  possible  that 
there  should  be  uniformity  in  the  local  institutions  and  domestic  regulations  of  the 
different  States  of  this  Union.  The  framers  of  our  government  never  contemplated 
uniformity  in  its  internal  concerns.  The  fathers  of  the  Revolution,  and  the  sages 
who  made  the  Constitution,  well  understood  that  the  laws  and  domestic  institutions 
which  would  suit  the  granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire  would  be  totally  unfit  for  the 
rice  plantations  of  South  Carolina;  they  Avell  understood  that  the  laws  which  would 
suit  the  agricultural  districts  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York  would  be  totally  unfit 
for  the  large  mining  regions  of  the  Pacific,  or  the  lumber  regions  of  Maine, 
They  well  understood  that  the  great  varieties  of  soil,  of  production  and  of  interests, 
in  a  Republic  as  large  as  this,  required  different  local  and  domestic  regulations  in 
each  locality,  adapted  to  the  wants  and  interests  of  each  separate  State,  and  for  that 


reason  it  was  provided  in  the  Federal  Constitution  that  the  thirteen  original  States 
should  remain  sovereign  and  supreme  within  their  own  limits  in  regard  to  all  that 
was  local,  and  internal,  and  domestic,  while  the  Federal  Government  should  have  cer- 
tain specified  powers  which  were  general  and  national,  and  could  be  exercised  only  by 
federal  authority. 

The  framers  of  the  Constitution  well  understood  that  each  locality,  having  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  interests,  required  separate  and  distinct  laws,  domestic  institutions, 
and  police  regulations  adapted  to  its  own  wants  and  its  own  condition ;  and  they 
acted  on  the  presumption,  also,  that  these  laws  and  institutions  would  be  as  diversi- 
fied and  as  dissimilar  as  the  States  would  be  numerous,  and  that  no  two  would  be 
precisely  alike,  because  the  interests  of  no  two  would  be  precisely  the  same. 
Hence,  I  assert,  that  the  great  fundamental  principle  which  underlies  our  com- 
plex system  of  State  and  Federal  Governments,  contemplated  diversity  and 
dissimilarity  in  the  local  institutions  and  domestic  affairs  of  each  and  every 
State  then  in  the  Union,  or  thereafter  to  be  admitted  into  the  Confederacy.  I 
therefore  conceive  that  my  friend,  Mr.  Lincoln,  has  totally  misapprehended  the 
great  principles  upon  which  our  government  rests.  Uniformity  in  local  and  domestic 
affairs  would  be  destructive  of  State  rights,  of  State  sovereignty,  of  personal  liberty 
and  personal  freedom.  Uniformity  is  the  parent  of  despotism  the  world  over,  not 
only  in  politics,  but  in  religion.  Wherever  the  doctrine  of  uniformity  is  proclaimed, 
that  all  the  States  must  be  free  or  all  slave,  that  all  labor  must  be  white  or  all  black, 
that  all  the  citizens  of  the  different  States  must  have  the  same  privileges  or  be  gov- 
erned by  the  same  regulations,  you  have  destroyed  the  greatest  safeguard  which  our 
institutions  have  thrown  around  the  rights  of  the  citizen. 

How  could  this  uniformity  be  accomplished,  if  it  was  desirable  and  possible? 
There  is  but  one  mode  in  which  it  could  be  obtained,  and  that  must  be  by  abolishing 
the  State  Legislatures,  blotting  out  State  sovereignty,  merging  the  rights  and  sove- 
reignty of  the  States  in  one  consolidated  empire,  and  vesting  Congress  with  the  ple- 
nary power  to  make  all  the  police  regulations,  domestic  and  local  laws,  uniform  through- 
out the  limits  of  the  Republic.  When  you  shall  have  done  this,  you  will  have  uni- 
formity. Then  the  States  will  all  be  slave  or  all  be  free ;  then  negroes  will  vote 
everywhere  or  nowhere;  then  you  will  have  a  Maine  liquor  law  in  every  State  or 
none ;  then  you  will  have  uniformity  in  all  things,  local  and  domestic,  by  the  authority 
of  the  Federal  Government.  But  when  you  attain  that  uniformity,  you  will  have 
converted  these  thirty-two  sovereign,  independent  States  into  one  consolidated  em- 
pire, with  the  uniformity  of  disposition  reigning  triumphant  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  the  land. 

From  this  view  of  the  case,  my  friends,  I  am  driven  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion 
that  diversity,  dissimilarity,  variety  in  all  our  local  and  domestic  institutions,  is  the 
great  safeguard  of  our  liberties  ;  and  that  the  framers  of  our  institutions  were  wise, 
sagacious,  and  patriotic,  when  they  made  this  government  a  confederation  of  sove- 
reign States,  with  a  Legislature  for  each,  and  conferred  upon  each  Legislature  the 
power  to  make  all  local  and  domestic  institutions  to  suit  the  people  it  represented, 
without  interference  from  any  other  State  or  from  the  general  Congress  of  the  Union. 
II'  we  expect  to  maintain  our  liberties,  we  must  preserve  the  rights  and  sovereignty 
of  the  States ;  we  must  maintain  and  carry  out  that  great  principle  of  self-govern- 
ment incorporated  in  the  compromise  measures  of  1850;  indorsed  by  the  Illinois 
Legislature  in  1851 ;  emphatically  embodied  and  carried  out  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  and  vindicated  this  year  by  the  refusal  to  bring  Kansas  into  the  Union  with  a 
Constitution  distasteful  to  her  people. 

The  other  proposition  discussed  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  speech  consists  in  a  crusade 
against  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  on  account  of  the  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision. On  this  question,  also,  I  desire  to  say  to  you  unequivocally,  that  I  take  di- 
rect and  distinct  issue  with  him.  I  have  no  warfare  to  make  on  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  either  on  account  of  that  or  any  other  decision  which  they  have 
pronounced  from  that  bench.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  provided  that 


11 

the  powers  of  government  (and  the  Constitution  of  each  State  has  the  same  pro- 
vision) shall  be  divided  into  three  departments — executive,  legislative,  and  judicial. 
The  right  and  the  province  of  expounding  the  Constitution,  and  constructing  the 
law,  is  vested  in  the  judiciary  established  by  the  Constitution.  As  a  lawyer,  I  feel 
at  liberty  to  appear  before  the  Court  and  controvert  any  principle  of  law  while  the 
question  is  pending  before  the  tribunal;  but  when  the  decision  is  made,  my  private 
opinion,  your  opinion,  all  other  opinions  must  yield  to  the  majesty  of  that  authorita- 
tive adjudication.  I  wish  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  this  involves  a  great  principle, 
upon  which  our  rights,  our  liberty  and  our  property  all  depend.  What  security  have 
you  for  your  property,  for  your  reputation,  and  for  your  personal  rights,  if  the  courts 
are  not  upheld,  and  their  decisions  respected  when  once  fairly  rendered  by  the  highest 
tribunal  known  to  the  Constitution?  I  do  not  choose,  therefore, to  go  into  any  argu- 
ment with  Mr.  Lincoln  in  reviewing  the  various  decisions  which  the  Supreme  Court 
has  made,  either  upon  the  Dred  Scott  case  or  any  other.  I  have  no  idea  of  appeal- 
ing from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  upon  a  Constitutional  question  to  the 
decisions  of  a  tumultuous  town  meeting.  I  am  aware  that  once  an  eminent  lawyer 
of  this  city,  now 'no  more,  said  that  the  State  of  Illinois  had  the  most  perfect  judicial 
system  in  the  world,  subject  to  but  one  exception,  which  could  be  cured  by  a  slight 
amendment,  and  that  amendment  was  to  so  change  the  law  as  to  allow  an  appeal 
from  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois,  on  all  Constitutional  questions, 
to  Justices  of  the  Peace. 

My  friend,  Mr.  Lincoln,  who  sits  behind  me,  reminds  me  that  that  proposition  was 
made  when  I  was  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court.  Be  that  as  it  may,  I  do  not  thirik 
that  fact  adds  any  greater  weight  or  authority  to  the  suggestion.  It  matters  not  with 
me  who  was  on  the  bench,  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  or  myself,  whether  a  Lockwood  or  a 
Smith,  a  Taney  or  a  Marshall ;  the  decision  of  the  highest  tribunal  known  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  country  must  be  final  till  it  has  been  reversed  by  an  equally  high 
authority.  Hence,  I  am  opposed  to  this  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  by  which  he  pro- 
poses to  take  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
upon  this  high  constitutional  question,  to  a  Republican  caucus  sitting  in  the  country. 
Yes,  or  any  other  caucus  or  town  meeting,  whether  it  be  Republican,  American,  or 
Democratic.  I  respect  the  decisions  of  that  august  tribunal ;  I  shall  always  bow  in 
deference  to  them.  I  am  a  law-abiding  man.  I  will  sustain  the  Constitution  of  my 
country  as  our  fathers  have  made  it.  I  will  yield  obedience  to  the  laws,  whether  I 
like  them  or  not,  as  I  find  them  on  the  statute  book.  I  will  sustain  the  judicial 
tribunals  and  constituted  authorities  in  all  matters  within  the  pale  of  their  juris<Jic- 
tion  as  defined  by  the  Constitution. 

But  I  am  equally  free  to  say  that  the  reason  assigned  by  Mr.  Lincoln  for  resisting 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  does  not  in  itself  meet  my 
approbation.  He  objects  to  it  because  that  decision  declared  that  a  negro  descended 
from  African  parents,  who  were  brought  here  and  sold  as  slaves,  is  not,  and  cannot 
be.  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  He  says  it  is  wrong,  because  it  deprives  the  negro 
of  the  benefits  of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  says  that  citizens  of  one  State 
shall  enjoy  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  several  States ;  in 
other  words,  he  thinks  it  wrong  because  it  deprives  the  negro  of  the  privileges,  im- 
munities and  rights  of  citizenship,  which  pertain,  according  to  that  decision,  only  to 
the  white  man.  I  am  free  to  say  to  you  that  in  my  opinion  this  government  of  ours 
is  founded  on  the  white  basis.  It  was  made  by  the  white  man,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
white  man,  to  be  administered  by  white  men,  in  such  manner  as  they  should  deter- 
mine. It  is  also  true  that  a  negro,  an  Indian,  or  any  other  man  of  inferior  race  to 
a  white  man,  should  be  permitted  to  enjoy,  and  humanity  requires  that  he  should 
have  all  the  rights,  privileges  arid  immunities  which  he  is  capable  of  exercising  coa- 
sistent  with  the  safety  of  society.  I  would  give  him  every  right  and  every  privilege 
which  his  capacity  would  enable  him  to  enjoy,  consistent  with  the  good  of  the  society 
in  which  he  lived.  But  you  may  ask  me,  what  are  these  rights  and  these  privileges? 
My  answer  is,  that  each  State  must  decide  for  itself  the  nature  mid  extent  of  these 


12 

rights.  Illinois  has  decided  for  herself.  We  have  decided  that  the  negro  shall  not 
be  a  slave,  and  we  have  at  the  same  time  decided  that  he  shall  not  vote,  or  serve  on 
juries,  or  enjoy  political  privileges.  I  am  content  with  that  system  of  policy  which 
we  have  adopted  for  ourselves.  I  deny  the  right  of  any  other  State  to  complain  of 
our  policy  in  that  respect,  or  to  interfere  with  it,  or  to  attempt  to  change  it.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  State  of  Maine  has  decided  that  in  that  State  a  negro  man  may  vote 
on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  The  sovereign  power  of  Maine  had  the  right 
to  prescribe  that  rule  for  herself.  Illinois  has  no  right  to  complain  of  Maine  for 
conferring  the  right  of  negro  suffrage,  nor  has  Maine  any  right  to  interfere  with,  or 
complain  of  Illinois  because  she  has  denied  negro  suffrage. 

The  State  of  New  York  has  decided  by  her  Constitution  that  a  negro  may  vote, 
.provided  that  he  own  $250  worth  of  property,  but  not  otherwise.  The  rich  negro 
can  vote,  but  the  poor  one  cannot.  Although  that  distinction  does  not  commend 
itself  to  my  judgment,  yet  I  assert  that  the  sovereign  power  of  New  York  had  a 
right  to  prescribe  that  form  of  the  elective  franchise.  Kentucky,  Virginia  and  other 
States  have  provided  that  negroes,  or  a  certain  class  of  them  in  those  States,  shall  be 
slaves,  having  neither  civil  or  political  rights.  Without  indorsing  the  wisdom  of 
that  decision,  I  assert  that  Virginia  has  the  same  power  by  virtue  of  her  sovereignty 
to  protect  slavery  within  her  limits,  as  Illinois  has  to  banish  it  forever  from  our  own 
borders.  I  assert  the  right  of  each  State  to  decide  for  itself  on  all  these  questions, 
and  I  do  not  subscribe  to  the  doctrine  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  uniformity  is 
either  desirable  or  possible.  I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  States  must  all  be  free 
or  must  all  be  slave. 

I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  negro  must  have  civil  and  political  rights  every- 
where or  nowhere.  I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  Chinese  must  have  the  same  righte 
in  California  that  we  would  confer  upon  him  here.  I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the 
Cooley  imported  into  this  country  must  necessarily  be  put  upon  an  eqality  with  the 
white  race.  I  do  not  acknowledge  any  of  these  doctrines  of  uniformity  in  the  local 
and  domestic  regulations  in  the  different  States. 

Thus  you  see,  my  fellow-citizens,  that  the  issues  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself, 
as  respective  candidates  for  the  U.  S.  Senate,  as  made  up,  are  direct,  unequivocal, 
and  irreconcilable.  He  goes  for  uniformity  in  our  domestic  institutions,  for  a  war  of 
sections,  until  one  or  the  other  shall  be  subdued.  I  go  for  the  great  principle  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide  for  themselves. 

On  the  other  point,  Mr.  Lincoln  goes  for  a  warfare  upon  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  because  of  their  judicial  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case.  I  yield 
obedience  to  the  decisions  in  that  court — to  the  final  determination  of  the  highest  ju- 
dicial tribunal  known  to  our  constitution.  He  objects  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision  be- 
cause it  does  not  put  the  negro  in  the  possession  of  the  rights  of  citizenship  on  an 
equality  with  the  white  man.  I  am  opposed  to  negro  equality.  I  repeat  that  this 
nation  is  a  white  people — a  people  composed  of  European  descendants — a  people 
that  have  established  this  government  for  themselves  and  their  posterity,  arid  I  am  in 
favor  of  preserving  not  only  the  purity  of  the  blood,  but  the  purity  of  the  government 
from  any  mixture  or  amalgamation  with  inferior  races.  I  have  seen  the  effects  of 
this  mixture  of  superior  and  inferior  races — this  amalgamation  of  white  men  and 
Indians  and  negroes  ;  we  have  seen  it  in  Mexico,  in  Central  America,  in  South  Amer- 
ica, and  in  all  the  Spanish-American  States,  and  its  result  has  been  degeneration, 
demoralization,  and  degradation  below  the  capacity  for  self-government. 

I  am  opposed  to  taking  any  step  that  recognizes  the  negro  man  or  the  Indian  as 
the  equal  of  the  white  man.  I  am  opposed  to  giving  him  a  voice  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  government.  I  would  extend  to  the  negro,  and  the  Indian,  and  to  all 
dependent  races  every  right,  every  privilege,  and  every  immunity  consistent  witli  the 
safety  and  welfare  of  the  white  races ;  but  equality  they  never  should  have,  either 
political  or  social,  or  in  any  other  respect  whatever. 

My  friends,  you  see  that  the  issues  are  distinctly  drawn.  I  stand  by  the  same 
platform  that  I  have  so  often  proclaimed  to  you  and  to  the  people  of  Illinois  hereto- 


13 

fore.  1  stand  by  the  Democratic  organization,  yield  obedience  to  its  usages,  and  sup 
port  its  regular  nominations.  I  indorse  and  approve  the  Cincinnati  platform,  and  I 
adhere  to  and  intend  to  carry  out,  as  part  of  that  platform,  the  great  principle  of 
self-government,  which  recognizes  the  right  of  the  people  in  each  State  and  Territory 
to  decide  for  themselves  their  domestic  institutions.  In  other  words,  if  the  Lecornp- 
ton  issue  shall  arise  again,  you  have  only  to  turn  back  and  see  where  you  have  found 
me  during  the  last  six  months,  and  then  rest  assured  that  you  will  find  me  in  the 
same  position,  battling  for  the  same  principle,  and  vindicating  it  from  assault  from 
whatever  quarter  it  may  come,  so  long  as  I  have  the  power  to  do  it. 

Fellow-citizens,  you  now  have  before  you  the  outlines  of  the  propositions  which  I 
intend  to  discuss  before  the  people  of  Illinois  during  the  pending  campaign.  I  have 
Hpoken  without  preparation  and  in  a  very  desultory  manner,  and  may  have  omitted 
some  points  which  I  desired  to  discuss,  and  may  have  been  less  implicit  on  others 
than  I  could  have  wished.  I  have  made  up  my  mind  to  appeal  to  the  people  against 
the  combination  which  has  been  made  against  me.  The  Republican  leaders  have 
formed  an  alliance,  an  unholy,  unnatural  alliance  with  a  portion  of  the  unscrupu- 
lous federal  office-holders.  I  intend  to  fight  that  allied  army  wherever  I  meet  them. 
I  know  they  deny  the  alliance  while  avoiding  the  common  purpose,  but  yet  these 
men  who  are  trying  to  divide  the  Democratic  party  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a 
Republican  Senator  in  my  place,  are  just  as  much  the  agents,  the  tools,  the  support- 
ers of  Mr.  Lincoln  as  if  they  were  avowed  Republicans,  and  expect  their  reward  for 
their  services  when  the  Republicans  come  into  power.  I  shall  deal  with  these  allied 
forces  just  as  the  Russians  dealt  with  the  allies  at  Seba«topol.  The  Russians,  when 
they  fired  a  broadside  at  the  common  enemy,  did  riot  stop  to  inquire  whether  it  hit  a 
Frenchman,  an  Englishman,  or  a  Turk,  nor  will  I  stop,  nor  shall  I  stop  to  inquire 
whether  my  blows  hit  the  Republican  leaders  or  their  allies,  who  are  holding  the 
federal  offices  and  yet  acting  in  concert  with  the  Republicans  to  defeat  the  Democratic 
party  and  its  nominees.  I  do  not  include  all  of  the  federal  office-holders  in  this  re- 
mark. Such  of  them  as  are  Democrats  and  show  their  Democracy  by  remaining 
inside  of  the  Democratic  organization  and  supporting  its  nominees,  I  recognize  as 
Democrats,  but  those  who,  having  been  defeated  inside  of  the  organization,  go  out- 
side and  attempt  to  divide  and  destroy  the  party  in  concert  with  the  Republican 
leaders,  have  ceased  to  be  Democrats,  and  belong  to  the  allied  army,  whose  avowed 
object  is  to  elect  the  Republican  ticket  by  dividing  and  destroying  the  Democratic 
party. 

My  friends,  I  have  exhausted  myself,  and  I  certainly  have  fatigued  you,  in  the 
long  and  desultory  remarks  which  I  have  made.  It  is  now  two  nights  since  I  have 
been  in  bed,  and  I  think  I  have  a  right  to  a  little  sleep.  I  will,  however,  have  an 
opportunity  of  meeting  you  face  to  face,  and  addressing  you  on  more  than  one  occa- 
sion before  the  November  election.  In  conclusion,  I  must  again  say  to  you,  justice 
10  my  own  feelings  demands  it,  that  my  gratitude  for  the  welcome  you  have  extended 
to  ine  o"n  this  occasion  knows  no  bounds,  and  can  be  described  by  no  language  which 
I  can  command.  I  see  that  I  am  literally  at  home  when  among  my  constituents. 
This  welcome  has  amply  repaid  me  for  every  effort  that  I  have  made  in  the  public 
service  during  nearly  twenty-five  years  that  I  have  held  office  at  your  hands.  It 
noi  only  compensates  me  for  the  past,  but  it  furnishes  an  inducement  and  incentive 
tor  future  effort  which  no  man,  no  matter  how  patriotic,  can  feel  who  has  not  wit- 
ucssed  tLe  magnificent  reception  you  have  extended  to  me  to-night  on  my  return. 


14 


SPEECH  OF  HON.  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN, 

IN   REPLY   TO    SENATOR    DOUGLAS. 

Delivered  at   Chicago    Saturday  evening,  July  10,  1858.      (Mr.  Douglas  was  not 

present.) 


Mr.  Lincoln  was  introduced  by  C.  L.  Wilson,  Esq.,  and  as  he  made  his  appearance 
he  was  greeted  with  a  perfect  storm  of  applause.  For  some  moments  the  enthusiasm 
continued  unabated.  At  last,  when  by  a  wave  of  his  hand  partial  silence  was  re- 
stored, Mi\  Lincoln  said : 

MY  FELLOW-CITIZENS  :  On  yesterday  evening,  upon  the  occasion  of  the  recep- 
tion given  to  Senator  Douglas,  I  was  furnished  with  a  seat  very  convenient  for  hear- 
ing him,  and  was  otherwise  very  courteously  treated  by  him  and  his  friends,  and  for 
which  I  thank  him  and  them.  During  the  course  of  his  remarks  my  name  was 
mentioned  in  such  a  way  as,  I  suppose,  renders  it  at  least  not  improper  that  I  should 
make  some  sort  of  reply  to  him.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  follow  him  in  the  precise 
order  in  which  he  addressed  the  assembled  multitude  upon  that  occasion,  though  I 
shall  perhaps  do  so  in  the  main. 

There  was  one  question  to  which  he  asked  the  attention  of  the  crowd,  which  I 
deem  of  somewhat  less  importance — at  least  of  propriety  for  me  to  dwell  upon — 
than  the  others,  which  he  brought  in  near  the  close  of  his  speech,  and  which  I  think 
it  would  not  be  entirely  proper  for  me  to  omit  attending  to,  and  yet  if  I  were  not  to 
give  some  attention  to  it  now,  I  should  probably  forget  it  altogether.  While  I 
am  upon  this  subject,  allow  me  to  say  that  I  do  not  intend  to  indulge  in  that  incon- 
venient mode  sometimes  adopted  in  public  speaking,  of  reading  from  documents; 
but  I  shall  depart  from  that  rule  so  far  as  to  read  a  little  scrap  from  his  speech,  which 
notices  this  first  topic  of  which  I  shall  speak — that  is,  provided  I  can  find  it  in  the 
paper. 

"  I  have  made  up  my  mind  to  appeal  to  the  people  against  the  combination  that 
has  been  made  against  me !  the  Republican  leaders  having  formed  an  alliance,  an 
unholy  and  unnatural  alliance,  with  a  portion  of  unscrupulous  federal  office-holders. 
I  intend  to  fight  that  allied  army  wherever  I  meet  them.  I  know  they  deny  the  alli- 
ance, but  yet  these  men  who  are  trying  to  divide  the  Democratic  party  for  the  pur- 
pose of  electing  a  Republican  Senator  in  my  place,  are  just  as  much  the  agents  and 
tools  of  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Hence  I  shall  deal  with  this  allied  army 
just  as  the  Russians  dealt  with  the  allies  at  Sebastopol — that  is,  the  Russians  did  not 
stop  to  inquire,  when  they  fired  a  broadside,  whether  it  hit  an  Englishman,  a  French- 
man, or  a  Turk.  Nor  will  I  stop  to  inquire,  nor  shall  I  hesitate,  whether  my  blows 
shall  hit  these  Republican  leaders  or  their  allies,  who  are  holding  the  federa'  jffices 
and  yet  acting  in  concert  with  them." 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  is  not  that  very  alarming?  Just  to  think  of  it!  right  at 
the  outset  ot  his  canvass,  I,  a  poor,  kind,  amiable,  intelligent  gentleman,  I  am  to  be 
slain  in  this  way.  Why,  my  friend,  the  Judge,  is  not  only,  as  it  turns  out,  not  a 
dead  lion,  nor  even  a  living  one — he  is  the  rugged  Russian  Bear ! 

But  if  they  will  have  it — for  he  says  that  we  deny  it — that  there  is  any  such  alli- 
ance, as  he  says  there  is — and  I  don't  propose  hanging  very  much  upon  this  question 
of  veracity — but  if  he  will  have  it  that  there  is  such  an  alliance — that  the  Adminis- 
tration men  and  we  are  allied,  and  we  stand  in  the  attitude  of  English,  French  and 
Turk,  he  occupying  the  position  of  the  Russian,  in  that  case,  I  beg  that  he  will  in- 
dulge us  while  we  barely  suggest  to  him  that  these  allies  took  Sebastopol. 


15 

Gentlemen,  only  a  few  more  words  as  to  this  alliance.  For  my  part,  I  have  to 
say,  that  whether  there  be  sueh  an  alliance,  depends,  so  far  as  I  know,  upon  what 
may  be  a  right  definition  of  the  term  alliance.  If  for  the  Republican  party  to  see 
the  other  great  party  to  which  they  are  opposed  divided  among  themselves,  and  not 
try  to  stop  the  division  and  rather  be  glad  of  it — if  that  is  an  alliance,  I  confess  I  am 
in  ;  but  if  it  is  meant  to  be  said  that  the  Republicans  had  formed  an  alliance  going . 
beyond  that,  by  which  there  is  contribution  of  money  or  sacrifice  of  principle  on  the 
one  side  or  the  other,  so  far  as  the  Republican  party  is  concerned,  if  there  be  any 
such  thing,  I  protest  that  I  neither  know  any  thing  of  it,  nor  do  I  believe  it.  I  will, 
however,  say — as  I  think  this  branch  of  the  argument  is  lugged  in — I  would  before 
I  leave  it,  state,  for  the  benefit  of  those  concerned,  that  one  of  those  same  Buchanan 
men  did  once  tell  me  of  an  argument  that  he  made  for  his  opposition  to  Judge  Doug- 
las. He  said  that  a  friend  of  our  Senator  Douglas  had  been  talking  to  him,  and  had 
among  other  things  said  to  him  :  "Why,  you  don't  want  to  beat  Douglas  ?"  "Yes," 
said  he,  **  I  do  want  to  beat  him,  and  1  will  tell  you  why.  I  believe  his  original  Ne- 
braska bill  was  right  in  the  abstract,  but  it  was  wrong  in  the  time  that  it  was  brought 
forward.  It  was  wrong  in  the  application  to  a  Territory  in  regard  to  which  the  ques- 
tion had  been  settled ;  it  was  brought  forward  at  a  time  when  nobody  asked  him ;  it 
was  tendered  to  the  South  when  the  South  had  not  asked  for  it,  but  when  they  could 
not  well  refuse  it ;  and  for  this  same  reason  he  forced  that  question  upon  our  party ; 
it  has  sunk  the  best  men  all  over  the  nation,  everywhere ;  and  now  Avhen  our  Presi- 
dent, struggling  with  the  difficulties  of  this  man's  getting  up,  has  reached  the  very 
hardest  point  to  turn  in  the  case,  he  deserts  him,  and  I  am  for  putting  him  where  he 
will  trouble  us  no  more." 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  not  my  argument — that  is  not  my  argument  at  all.  I 
have  only  been  stating  to  you  the  argument  of  a  Buchanan  man.  You  will  judge 
if  there  is  any  force  in  it. 

Popular  sovereignty !  everlasting  popular  sovereignty !  Let  us  for  a  moment  in- 
quire into  this  vast  matter  of  popular  sovereignty.  What  is  popular  sovereignty  ? 
We  recollect  that  at  an  rtarly  period  in  the  history  of  this  struggle,  there  was  another 
name  for  the  same  thing — Squatter  Sovereignty.  It  was  not  exactly  Popular  Sov- 
ereignty, but  Squatter  Sovereignty.  What  do  those  terms  mean  ?  What  do  those 
terms  mean  when  used  now  ?  And  vast  credit  is  taken  by  our  friend,  the  Judge,  in 
regard  to  his  support  of  it,  when  he  declares  the  last  years  of  his  life  have  been,  and 
all  the  future  years  of  his  life  shall  be,  devoted  to  this  matter  of  popular  sovereignty. 
What  is  it  ?  Why,  it  is  the  sovereignty  of  the  people !  What  was  Squatter  Sov- 
ereignty ?  I  suppose  if  it  had  any  significance  at  all  it  was  the  right  of  the  people  to 
govern  themselves,  to  be  sovereign  in  their  own  affairs  while  they  were  squatted 
down  in  a  country  not  their  own,  while  they  had  squatted  on  a  Territory  that  did  not 
belong  to  them,  in  the  sense  that  a  State  belongs  to  the  people  who  inhabit  it — when 
it  belonged  to  the  nation — such  right  to  govern  themselves  was  called  "Squatter 
Sovereignty." 

Now  I  wish  you  to  mark.  What  has  become  of  that  Squatter  Sovereignty? 
"What  has  become  of  it?  Can  you  get  any  body  to  tell  you  now  that  the  people  of  a 
Territory  have  any  authority  to  govern  themselves,  in  regard  to  this  mooted  question 
of  slavery,  before  they  form  a  State  Constitution?  No  such  thing  at  all,  although 
there  i?  a  general  running  fire,  and  although  there  has  been  a  hurra  made  in  every 
speech  on  that  side,  assuming  that  policy  had  given  the  people  of  a  Territory  the 
right  to  govern  themselves  upon  this  question ;  yet  the  point  is  dodged.  To-day  it 
has  been  decided — no  more  than  a  year  ago  it  was  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  and  is  insisted  upon  to-day,  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  have  no 
right  to  exclude  slavery  from  a  Territory,  that  if  anyone  man  chooses  to  take  -laves 
into  a  Territory,  all  the  rest  of  the  people  have  no  right  to  keep  them  out.  T:;i*  be- 
ing so,  and  this  decision  being  made  one  of  the  points  that  the  .Judge  approval,  and 
one  in  the  approval  of"  which  he  says  he  means  to  keep  me  down — jmr  :n  >  tlown  I 
should  not  say,  for  I  have  never  been  up.  He  says  he  is  in  favor  of  it,  a  ul  sticks  to 


16 

to,  and  expects  to  win  his  battle  on  that  decision,  which  says  that  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  Squatter  Sovereignty ;  but  that  any  one  man  may  take  slaves  into  a  Terri- 
tory, and  all  the  other  men  in  the  Territory  may  be  opposed  to  it,  and  yet  by  reasou 
»f  the  Constitution  they  cannot  prohibit  it.  When  that  is  so,  how  much  is  left  of 
this  vast  matter  of  Squatter  Sovereignty  I  should  like  to  know  ? 

When  we  get  back,  we  get  to  the  point  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  a  Con- 
stitution. Ka*  sas  was  settled,  for  example,  in  1854.  It  was  a  Territory  yet,  without 
having  formed  a  Constitution,  in  a  very  regular  way,  for  three  years.  All  this  time 
negro  slavery  could  be  taken  in  by  any  few  individuals,  and  by  that  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  which  the  Judge  approves,  all  the  rest  of  the  people  cannot  keep  it 
out ;  but  when  they  come  to  make  a  Constitution  they  may  say  they  will  not  have 
slavery.  But  it  is  there ;  they  are  obliged  to  tolerate  it  some  way,  and  all  experience 
shows  it  will  be  so — for  they  will  not  take  the  negro  slaves  and  absolutely  deprive 
die  owners  of  them.  All  experience  shows  this  to  be  so.  All  that  space  of  time 
that  runs  from  the  beginning  of  the  settlement  of  the  Territory  until  there  is  suffi- 
ciency of  people  to  make  a  State  Constitution — all  that  portion  of  time  popular  sov- 
ereignty is  given  up.  The  seal  is  absolutely  put  down  upon  it  by  the  Court  decision, 
*mi  Judge  Douglas  puts  his  own  upon  the  top  of  that,  yet  he  is  appealing  to  the  peo- 
ple, to  give  him  vast  credit  for  his  devotion  to  popular  sovereignty. 

Again,  when  we  get  to  the  question  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  form  a  State 
Constitution  as  they  please,  to  form  it  with  slavery  or  without  slavery — if  that  is  any 
thing  new,  I  confess  I  don't  know  it.  Has  there  ever  been  a  time  when  any  body 
said  that,  any  other  than  the  people  of  a  Territory  itself  should  form  a  Constitution  ? 
What  is  now  in  it  that  Judge  Douglas  should  have  fought  several  years  of  his  life, 
and  pledge  himself  to  fight  all  the  remaining  years  of  his  life  for?  Can  Judge 
Douglas  find  any  body  on  earth  that  said  that  any  body  else  should  form  a  Constitu- 
tion for  a  people  ?  [A  voice,  "Yes."]  Well,  I  should  like  you  to  name  him;  I 
*U)auld  like  to  know  who  he  was.  [Same  voice,  "John  Calhoun."] 

Mr.  Lincoln — No,  Sir,  I  never  heard  of  even  John  Calhoun  saying  such  a  thing. 
Ho  insisted  on  the  same  principle  as  Judge  Douglas ;  but  his  mode  of  applying  it,  in 
fkct,  was  wrong.  It  is  enough  for  my  purpose  to  ask  this  crowd,  when  ever  a  Re- 
publican said  anything  against  it  ?  They  never  said  anything  against  it,  but  they 
have  constantly  spoken  for  it ;  and  whosoever  will  undertake  to  examine  the  platform, 
*nd  the  speeches  of  responsible  men  of  the  party,  and  of  irresponsible  men,  too,  if 
you  please,  will  be  unable  to  find  one  word  from  anybody  in  the  Republican  ranks, 
opposed  to  that  Popular  Sovereignty  which  Judge  Douglas  thinks  that  he  has  in- 
vented. I  suppose  that  Judge  Douglas  will  claim  in  a  little  while,  that  he  is  the  in- 
ventor of  the  idea  that  the  people  should  govern  themselves  ;  that  nobody  ever  thought 
of  such  a  thing  until  he  brought  it  forward.  We  do  not  remember,  that  in  that  old 
Declaration  of  Independence,  it  is  said  that  "We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evi- 
rtont,  that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with 
certain  inalienable  rights ;  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  hap- 
piness ;  that  to  secure  these  rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men,  deriving 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed."  There  is  the  origin  of  Popu- 
lar Sovereignty.  Who,  then,  shall  come  in  at  this  day  and  claim  that  he  invented  it? 

The  Lecompton  Constitution  connects  itself  with  this  question,  for  it  is  in  this 
matter  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  that  our  friend  Judge  Douglas  claims  such 
vast  credit.  I  agree  that  in  opposing  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  so  far  as  I  can 
perceive,  he  was  right.  I  do  not  deny  that  at  all ;  and,  gentlemen,  you  will  readily 
see  why  I  could  not  deny  it,  even  if  I  wanted  to.  But  I  do  not  wish  to ;  for  all  the 
Republicans  in  the  nation  opposed  it,  and  they  would  have  opposed  it  just  as  much 
without  Judge  Douglas's  aid  as  with  it  They  had  all  taken  ground  against  it  long 
before  h3  did.  Why,  the  reason  that  he  urges  against  that  Constitution,  I  urged 
against  him  a  year  before.  I  have  the  printed  speech  in  my  hand.  The  argument 
that  he  makes,  why  that  Constitution  should  not  be  adopted,  that  the  people  were 
not  fairly  represented  nor  allowed  to  vote,  I  pointed  out  in  a  speech  a  year  ago, 


17 

which  I  hold  in  my  hand  now,  that  no  fair  chance  was  to  be  given  to  the  people. 
["  Read  it,"  "read  it."]  I  shall  not  waste  your  time  by  trying  to  read  it  ["Read 
it,"  "  read  it."]  Gentlemen,  reading  from  speeches  is  a  very  tedious  business,  par- 
ticularly for  an  old  man  that  has  to  put  on  spectacles,  and  more  so  if  the  man  be  so 
tall  that  he  has  to  bend  over  to  the  light 

A  little  more,  now,  as  to  this  matter  of  Popular  Sovereignty  and  the  Lecomptoa 
Constitution.  The  Lecompton  Constitution,  as  the  Judge  tells  us,  was  defeated 
The  defeat  of  it  was  a  good  thing  or  it  was  not.  He  thinks  the  defeat  of  it  was  a 
good  thing,  and  so  do  I,  arid  we  agree  in  that.  Who  defeated  it  ? 

A  voice  —  "Judge  Douglas." 

Mr.  Lincoln  —  Yes,  he  furnished  himself,  and  if  you  suppose  he  controlled  the 
other  Democrats  that  went  with  him,  he  furnished  three  votes,  while  the  Republicans 
furnished  twenty. 

That  is  what  he  did  to  defeat  it  In  the  House  of  Representatives  he  and 
his  friends  furnished  some  twenty  votes,  and  the  Republicans  furnished  ninety  odd 
Now  who  was  it  that  did  the  work  ? 

A  voice  —  "  Douglas." 

Mr.  Lincoln  —  Why,  yes,  Douglas  did  it !     To  be  sure  he  did. 

Let  us,  however,  put  that  proposition  another  way.  The  Republicans  could  not 
have  done  it  without  Judge  Douglas.  Could  he  have  done  it  without  them  ?  Which 
could  have  come  the  nearest  to  doing  it  without  the  other  ? 

A  voice  — "Who  killed  the  bill?" 

Another  voice  —  "  Douglas." 

Mr.  Lincoln  —  Ground  was  taken  against  it  by  the  Republicans  long  before  Dou# 
las  did  it.  The  proportion  of  opposition  to  that  measure  is  about  five  to  one. 

A  voice  —  "  Why  don't  they  come  out  on  it  ?  " 

Mr.  Lincoln  —  You  don't  know  what  you  are  talking  about,  my  friend.  I  am 
quite  willing  to  answer  any  gentleman  in  the  crowd  who  asks  an  intelligent 
question. 

Now  who,  in  all  this  country,  has  ever  found  any  of  our  friends  of  Judge 
Douglas's  way  of  thinking,  and  who  have  acted  upon  this  main  question,  that  hag 
ever  thought  of  uttering  a  word  in  behalf  of  Judge  Trumbull  ? 

A  voice  —  "  AVe  have." 

Mr.  Lincoln  —  I  defy  you  to  show  a  printed  resolution  passed  in  a  Democratic 
meeting  —  I  take  it  upon  myself  to  defy  any  man  to  show  a  printed  resolution  of  a 
Democratic  meeting,  large  or  small,  in  favor  of  Judge  Trumbull,  or  any  of  the  five 
to  one  Republicans  who  beat  that  bill.  Every  thing  must  be  for  the  Democrats  1 
They  did  every  thing,  and  the  five  to  the  one  that  really  did  the  thing,  they  snub 
over,  and  they  do  not  seem  to  remember  that  they  have  an  existence  upon  the  face 
of  the  earth. 

Gentlemen,  I  fear  that  I  shall  become  tedious.  I  leave  this  branch  of  "he  sub- 
ject to  take  hold  of  another.  I  take  up  that  part  of  Judge  Douglas's  spec  4*  in  which 
he  respectfully  attended  to  me. 

Judge  Douglas  made  two  points  upon  my  recent  speech  at  Springfield.  He  says 
they  are  to  be  the  issues  of  this  campaign.  The  first  one  of  these  points  he  bases 
upon  the  language  in  a  speech  which  I  delivered  at  Springfield,  which  I  believe  I 
can  quote  correctly  from  memory.  I  said  there  that  "  we  are  now  far  into  the  fifth 
year  since  a  policy  was  instituted  for  the  avowed  object,  and  with  the  confident  prom- 
ise, of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation  ;  under  the  operation  of  that  policy,  thai 
agitation  had  only  not  ceased,  but  had  constantly  augmented."  "  I  believe  it  will  not 
cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  '  A  house  divided  against 
itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  Government  cannot  endure  permanently  half 
slave  and  half  free."  "  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved  "  —  I  am  quoting 
from  my  speech  —  "  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease 
to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of 
Blavery  will  arrest  the  spread  of  it  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest,  in 


18 

the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  pusl' 
it  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  North  as  well  as 
South."  . 

What  is  the  paragraph  ?  In  this  paragraph  which  I  have  quoted  in  your  hearing, 
and  to  \vhich  I  ask  the  attention  of  all,  Judge  Douglas  thinks  he  discovers  great  po- 
litical heresy  I  want  your  attention  particularly  to  what  he  has  inferred  from  it. 
He  says  I  am  in  favor  of  making  all  the  States  of  this  Union  uniform  in  all 
their  internal  regulations ;  that  in  all  their  domestic  concerns  I  am  in  favor  of 
making  them  entirely  uniform.  He  draws  this  inference  from  the  language  I  have 
quoted  to  you.  He  says  that  I  am  in  favor  of  making  war  by  the  North  upon  the 
South  for  the  extinction  of  slavery;  that  I  am  also  in  favor  of  inviting  (as  he  ex- 
presses it)  the  South  to  a  war  upon  the  North,  for  the  purpose  of  nationalizing  sla- 
very. Now,  it  is  singular  enough,  if  you  will  carefully  read  that  passage  over,  that 
I  did  not  say  that  I  was  in  favor  of  anything  in  it.  I  only  said  what  I  expected 
would  take  place.  I  made  a  prediction  only  —  it  may  have  been  a  foolish  one  per- 
haps. I  did  not  even  say  that  I  desired  that  slavery  should  be  put  in  course  of  ulti- 
mate extinction.  I  do  say  so  now,  however,  so  there  need  be  no  longer  any  difficulty 
about  that.  It  may  be  written  down  in  the  great  speech. 

Gentlemen,  Judge  Douglas  informed  you  that  this  speech  of  mine  was  probably 
carefully  prepared.  I  admit  that  it  was.  I  am  not  master  of  language  ;  I  have  not 
a  fine  education ;  I  am  not  capable  of  entering  into  a  disquisition  upon  dialectics,  as 
I  believe  you  call  it ;  but  I  do  not  believe  the  language  I  employed  bears  any  such 
construction  as  Judge  Douglas  puts  upon  it.  But  I  don't  care  about  a  quibble  in  re- 
gard to  words.  I  know  what  I  meant,  and  I  will  not  leave  this  crowd  in  doubt,  if  I 
can  explain  it  to  them,  what  I  really  meant  in  the  use  of  that  paragraph. 

I  am  not,  in  the  first  place,  unaware  that  this  Government  has  endured  eighty -two 
years,  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  know  that.  I  am  tolerably  well  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  the  country,  and  I  know  that  it  has  endured  eighty-two  years,  half 
slave  and  half  free.  I  believe  —  and  that  is  what  I  meant  to  allude  to  there  —  I  be- 
lieve it  has  endured,  because  during  all  that  time,  until  the  introduction  of  the  Ne- 
braska bill,  the  public  mind  did  rest  all  the  time  in  the  belief  that  slavery  was  in 
course  of  ultimate  extinction.  That  was  what  gave  us  the  rest  that  we  had  through 
that  period  of  eighty-two  years ;  at  least,  so  I  believe.  I  have  always  hated  slavery, 
I  think,  as  much  as  any  Abolitionist — I  have  been  an  Old  Line  Whig — I  have  al- 
ways hated  it,  but  I  have  always  been  quiet  about  it  until  this  new  era  of  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Nebraska  bill  began.  I  always  believed  that  everybody  was  against 
it,  and  that  it  was  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  [Pointing  to  Mr.  Browning, 
who  stood  near  by.]  Browning  thought  so  ;  the  great  mass  of  the  nation  have  rested 
in  the  belief  that  slavery  was  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  They  had  reason  so 
to  believe. 

The  adoption  of  the  Constitution  and  its  attendant  history  led  the  people  to  be- 
lieve so ;  and  that  such  was  the  belief  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  itself,  why 
did  those  old  men,  about  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  decree  that 
slavery  should  not  go  into  the  new  Territory,  where  it  had  not  already  gone  ?  Why- 
declare  that  within  twenty  years  the  African  Slave  Trade,  by  which  slaves  are  sup- 
plied, might  be  cut  off  by  Congress  ?  Why  were  all  these  acts  ?  I  might  enumer- 
ate more  of  these  acts  —  but  enough.  What  were  they  but  a  clear  indication  that  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  intended  and  expected  the  ultimate  extinction  of  that 
institution  ?  And  now,  when  I  say,  as  I  said  in  my  speech  that  Judge  Douglas  has 
quoted  from,  when  I  say  that  I  think  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  resist  the  far- 
ther spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  with  the  belief  that 
it  is  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  I  only  mean  to  say,  that  they  will  place  it 
where  the  founders  of  this  Government  originally  placed  it. 

I  have  said  a  hundred  times,  and  I  have  now  no  inclination  to  take  it  back,  that  I 
believe  there  is  no  right,  and  ought  to  be  no  inclination  in  the  people  of  the  free  States 
to  enter  into  the  slave  Stales,  and  interfere  with  the  question  of  slavey  at  all.  I  have 


19 

Raid  that  always  ;  Judge  Douglas  lias  heard  me  say  it — if  not  quite  a  hundred  times,  at 
least  as  good  as  a  hundred  times;  and  when  it  is  said  that  I  am  in  favor  of  interfering 
with  slavery  where  it  exists,  I  know  it  is  unwarranted  by  anything  I  have  ever  intended, 
and,  as  I  believe,  by  anything  I  have  ever  said.  If,  by  any  means,  I  have  ever  used 
language  which  eouid  fairly  be  so  construed  (as,  however,  I  believe  I  never  have), 
1  now  correct  it. 

So  much,  then,  for  the  inference  that  Judge  Douglas  draws,  that  I  am  in  favor  of 
setting  the  sections  at  war  with  one  another.  I  know  that  I  never  meant  any  such 
thing,  and  I  believe  that  no  fair  mind  can  infer  any  such  thing  from  anything  I  have 
ever  said. 

Now  in  relation  to  his  inference  that  I  am  in  favor  of  a  general  consolidation  of 
all  the  local  institutions  of  the  various  States.  I  will  attend  to  that  for  a  little  while, 
and  try  to  inquire,  if  lean,  how  on  earth  it  could  be  that  any  man  could  draw  such 
an  inference  from  anything  I  said.  I  have  said,  very  many  times,  in  Judge  Doug- 
las's hearing  that  no  man  believed  more  than  I  in  the  principle  of  self-government ; 
that  it  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  my  ideas  of  just  government,  from  beginning  to  end. 
I  havr  denied  that  his  use  of  that  term  applies  properly.  But  for  the  thing  itself,  I 
deny  that  any  man  has  ever  gone  ahead  of  me  in  his  devotion  to  the  principle,  what- 
ever he  may  have  done  in  efficiency  in  advocating  it.  I  think  that  I  have  said  it  in 
your  hearing — that  I  believe  each  individual  is  naturally  entitled  to  do  as  he  pleases 
with  himself  and  the  fruit  of  his  labor,  so  far  as  it  in  no  wise  interferes  with  any 
other  man's  rights  —  that  each  community,  as  a  State,  has  a  right  to  do  exactly 
as  it  pleases  with  all  the  concerns  within  that  Slate  that  interferes  with  the  right 
of  no  other  State,  and  that  the  General  Government,  upon  principle,  has  no  right 
to  interfere  with  anything  other  than  that  general  class  of  things  that  does  concern 
the  whole.  I  have  said  that  at  all  times.  I  have  said  as  illustrations,  that  I  do  not 
believe  in  tne  right  of  Illinois  to  interfere  with  the  cranberry  laws  of  Indiana,  the 
oyster  laws  of  Virginia,  or  the  liquor  laws  of  Maine.  I  have  said  these  things 
over  and  over  again,  and  I  repeat  them  here  as  my  sentiments. 

How  is  it,  then,  that  Judge  Douglas  infers,  because  I  hope  to  see  slavery  put 
where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  ex- 
tinction, that  I  am  in  favor  of  Illinois  going  over  and  interfering  with  the  cranberry 
laws  of  Indiana?  What  can  authorize  him  to  draw  any  such  inference?  I  suppose 
there  might  be  one  thing  that  at  least  enabled  him  to  draw  such  an  inference  that 
would  not  be  true  with  me  or  many  others,  that  is,  because  he  looks  upon  all  this 
matter  of  slavery  as  an  exceedingly  little  thing — this  matter  of  keeping  one-sixth  of 
the  population  of  the  whole  nation  in  a  state  of  oppression  and  tyranny  unequaled 
in  the  world.  He  looks  upon  it  as  being  an  exceedingly  little  thing — only  equal  to 
the  question  of  the  cranberry  laws  of  Indiana — as  something  having  no  moral  question  iu 
it — as  something  on  a  par  with  the  question  of  whether  a  man  shall  pasture  his  land  with 
cattle,  or  plant  it  with  tobacco — so  little  and  so  small  a  thing,  that  he  concludes,  if  I 
could  desire  that  if  anything  should  be  done  to  bring  about  the  ultimate  extinction  of 
that  little  thing,  I  must  be  in  favor  of  bringing  about  an  amalgamation  of  all  the 
other  little  things  in  the  Union.  Now,  it  so  happens — and  there,  I  presume,  is  the 
foundation  of  this  mistake — that  the  Judge  thinks  thus;  and  it  so  happens  that  there 
is  a  vast  portion  of  the  American  people  that  do  not  look  upon  that  matter  as  being 
this  very  little  thing.  They  look  upon  it  as  a  vast  moral  evil;  they  can  prove  it 
as  such  by  the  writings  of  those  who  gave  us  the  blessings  of  liberty  which  we  enjoy, 
and  that  thj>y  so  looked  upon  it,  and  not  as  an  evil  merely  confining  itself  to  the 
States  where  it  is  situated  ;  and  while  we  agree  that,  by  the  Constitution  we  assent- 
ed to,  in  the  States  where  it  exists  we  have  no  right  to  interfere  with  it,  because  it  is 
in  the  Constitution;  and  we  are  by  both  duty  and  inclination  to  stick  by  that  Consti- 
tution, in  all  its  letter  and  spirit,  from  beginning  to  end. 

So  much  then  as  to  my  disposition — my  wish — to  have  all  the  State  Legislatures 
blotted  out,  and  to  have  one  consolidated  government,  and  a  uniformity  of  domestic 
regulations  in  all  the  States  by  which  I  suppose  it  is  meant,  if  we  raise  corn  here, 


20 

we  must  make  sugar-cane  grow  here  too,  and  we  must  make  those  which  grow  North 
grow  in  the  South.  All  this  I  suppose  he  understands  I  am  in  favor  of  doing. 
Now,  so  much  for  all  this  nonsense — for  I  must  call  it  so.  The  Judge  can  have  no 
issue  with  me  on  a  question  of  establishing  uniformity  in  the  domestic  regulations  of 
the  States. 

A  little  now  on  the  other  point — the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Another  of  the  issues 
he  says  that  is  to  be  made  with  me,  is  upon  his  devotion  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
and  my  opposition  to  it. 

I  have  expressed  heretofore,  and  I  now  repeat,  my  opposition  to  the  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision, but  1  should  be  allowed  to  state  the  nature  of  that  opposition,  and  I  ask  your  in- 
dulgence while  I  do  so.  What  is  fairly  implied  by  the  term  Judge  Douglas  has  used, 
**  resistance  to  the  decision  ?"  I  do  not  resist  it.  If  I  wanted  tv>  take  Dred  Scott 
from  his  master,  I  would  be  interfering  with  property,  and  that  terrible  difficulty 
that  Judge  Douglas  speaks  of,  of  interfering  with  property  would  arise.  But  I  am 
doing  no  such  thing  as  that,  but  all  that  I  am  doing  is  refusing  to  c  bey  it  as  a  politi- 
cal rule.  If  I  were  in  Congress,  and  a  vote  should  come  up  on  a  question  whether 
slavery  should  be  prohibited  in  a  new  Territory,  in  spite  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
I  would  vote  that  it  should. 

Mr.  Lincoln — That  is  what  I  would  do.  Judge  Douglas  said  last  night,  that 
before  the  decision  he  might  advance  his  opinion,  and  it  might  be  contrary  to  the 
decision  when  it  was  made;  but  after  it  was  made  he  would  abide  by  it  until  it  was 
reversed.  Just  so!  We  let  this  property  abide  by  the  decision,  but  WP,  will  try  to 
reverse  that  decision.  We  will  try  to  put  it  where  Judge  Douglas  wouM  not  object, 
for  he  says  he  will  obey  it  until  it  is  reversed.  Somebody  has  to  reverse  that  de- 
cision, since  it  is  made,  and  we  mean  to  reverse  it,  and  we  mean  to  do  it  ptviceably. 

What  are  the  uses  of  decisions  of  courts?  They  have  two  uses.  As  rules  of 
property  they  have  two  uses.  First — they  decide  upon  the  question  before  the 
court.  They  decide  in  this  case  that  Dred  Scott  is  a  slave.  Nobody  resists  that. 
Not  only  that,  but  they  say  to  everybody  else,  that  persons  standing  just  as  Dred 
Scott  stands,  is  as  he  is.  That  is,  they  say  that  when  a  question  comes  up  upon 
another  person,  it  will  be  so  decided  again,  unless  the  court  decides  in  another  way, 
unless  the  court  overrules  its  decision.  Well,  we  mean  to  do  what  we  can  tc  Lave 
the  court  decide  the  other  way.  That  is  one  thing  we  mean  to  try  to  do. 

The  sacredness  that  Judge  Douglas  throws  around  this  decision,  is  a  degree  of  s« 
credness  that  has  never  been  before  thrown  around  any  other  decision.  I  have  neve 
heard  of  such  a  thing.  Why,  decisions  apparently  contrary  to  that  decision,  or  tiia 
good  lawyers  thought  were  contrary  to  that  decision,  have  been  made  by  that  ver^ 
court  before.  It  is  the  first  of  its  kind ;  it  is  an  aatonisher  in  legal  history.  It  is  i 
new  wonder  of  the  world.  It  is  based  upon  falsehood  in  the  main  as  to  the  facts — 
allegations  of  facts  upon  which  it  stands  are  not  facts  at  all  in  many  instances,  anc 
no  decision  made  on  any  question — the  first  instance  of  a  decision  made  under  st 
many  unfavorable  circumstances — thus  placed,  has  ever  been  held  by  the  professioi 
as  law,  and  it  has  always  needed  confirmation  before  the  lawyers  regarded  it  as  set 
tied  law.  But  Judge  Douglas  will  have  it  that  all  hands  must  take  this  extraordinary 
decision,  made  under  these  extraordinary  circumstances,  and  give  their  vote  i* 
Congress  in  accordance  with  it,  yield  to  it  and  obey  it  in  every  possible  sense 
Circumstances  alter  cases.  Do  not  gentlemen  here  remember  the  ca^e  of  thai 
same  Supreme  Court,  some  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  ago,  deciding  that  a  National 
Bank  was  constitutional  ?  I  ask,  if  somebody  does  not  remember  that  a  National 
Bank  was  declared  to  be  constitutional  ?  Such  is  the  truth,  whether  it  be  remembered 
or  not.  The  Bank  charter  ran  out,  and  a  re-charter  was  granted  by  Congress.  That 
re-charter  was  laid  before  General  Jackson.  It  was  urged  upon  him,  when  he 
denied  the  constitutionality  of  the  Bank,  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  decided 
that  it  was  constitutional ;  and  that  General  Jackson  then  said  that  the  Su- 
preme Court  had  no  right  to  lay  down  a  rule  to  govern  a  coordinate  branch  of  the 
Government,  the  members  of  which  had  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution — thai 


21 

each  member  had  sworn  to  support  that  Constitution  as  he  understood  it.  I  will 
venture  here  to  say,  that  I  have  heard  Judge  Douglas  say  that  he  approved  of  Gen- 
eral Jackson  for  that  act.  What  has  now  become  of  all  his  tirade  about  "  resistance 
to  the  Supreme  Court?" 

My  fellow-citizens,  getting  back  a  little,  for  I  pass  from  these  points,  when  Judge 
Douglas  makes  his  threat  of  annihilation  upon  the  "  alliance,"  he  is  cautious  to 
say  that  that  warfare  of  his  is  to  fall  upon  the  leaders  of  the  Republican  party.  Al- 
most every  word  he  utters  and  every  distinction  he  makes,  has  its  significance.  He 
means  for  the  Republicans  who  do  not  count  themselves  as  leaders,  to  be  hi*  friends  ; 
he  makes  no  fuss  over  them ;  it  is  the  leaders  that  he  is  making  war  upon.  He 
wants  it  understood  that  the  mass  of  the  Republican  party  are  really  his  friends.  It 
is  only  the  leaders  that  are  doing  something,  that  are  intolerant,  and  that  require  ex- 
termination at  his  hands.  As  this  is  clearly  and  unquestionably  the  light  in  which 
he  presents  that  matter,  I  want  to  ask  your  attention,  addressing  myself  to  the  Re- 
publicans here,  that  I  may  ask  you  some  questions,  as  to  where  you,  as  the  Repub- 
lican party,  would  be  placed  if  you  sustained  Judge  Douglas  in  his  present  position 
by  a  reelection  ?  I  do  not  claim,  gentlemen,  to  be  unselfish";  I  do  not  pretend  that 
I  would  not  like  to  go  to  the  United  States  Senate,  I  make  no  such  hypocritical 
pretense,  but  I  do  say  to  you  that  in  this  mighty  issue,  it  is  nothing  to  you — nothing 
to  the  mass  of  the  people  of  the  nation,  whether  or  not  Judge  Douglas  or  myself 
shall  ever  be  heard  of  after  this  night ;  it  may  be  a  trifle  to  either  of  us,  but  in 
connection  with  this  mighty  question,  upon  which  hang  the  destinies  of  the  na- 
tion, perhaps,  it  is  absolutely  nothing ;  but  where  will  you  be  placed  if  you  reindorse 
Judge  Douglas  ?  Don't  you  know  how  apt  he  is — how  exceedingly  anxious  he  is  at 
all  times  to  seize  upon  anything  and  everything  to  persuade  you  that  something  he 
has  done  you  did  yourselves  ?  Why,  he  tried  to  persuade  you  last  night  that  our 
Illinois  Legislature  instructed  him  to  introduce  the  Nebraska  bill.  There  was  no- 
body in  that  Legislature  ever  thought  of  such  a  thing ;  and  when  he  first  introduced 
the  bill,  he  never  thought  of  it ;  but  still  he  fights  furiously  for  the  proposition,  and 
that  he  did  it  because  there  was  a  standing  instruction  to  our  Senators  to  be  always 
introducing  Nebraska  bills.  He  tells  you  he  is  for  the  Cincinnati  platform,  he 
tells  you  he  is  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  He  tells  you,  not  in  his  speech 
last  night,  but  substantially  in  a  former  speech,  that  he  cares  not  if  slavery  is 
voted  up  or  down — he  tells  you  the  struggle  on  Lecompton  is  past — it  may  come  up 
again  or  not,  and  if  it  does  he  stands  where  he  stood  when  in  spite  of  him  and  his 
opposition  you  built  up  the  Republican  party.  If  you  indorse  him,  you  tell  him 
you  do  not  care  whether  slavery  be  voted  up  or  down,  and  he  will  close,  or  try 
to  close  your  mouths  with  his  declaration,  repeated  by  the  day,  the  week,  the  month, 
and  the  year.  Is  that  what  you  mean  ?  f  Cries  of  "no,"  one  voice  "yes."]  Yes,  I 
have  no  doubt  you  who  have  always  been  for  him,  if  you  mean  that.  No  doubt  of 
that,  soberly  I  have  said,  and  I  repeat  it.  I  think,  in  the  position  in  which  Judge 
Douglas  stood  in  opposing  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  he  was  right ;  he  does 
not  know  that  it  will  return,  but  if  it  does  we  may  know  where  to  find  him,  and 
if  it  does  not  we  may  know  where  to  look  for  him,  and  that  is  on  the  Cincinnati 
platform.  Now  I  could  ask  the  Republican  party,  after  all  the  hard  names  that 
Judge  Douglas  has  called  them  by — all  his  repeated  charges  of  their  inclination 
to  marry  with  and  hug  negroes — all  his  declarations  of  Black  Republicanism — by 
the  way,  we  are  improving,  the  black  has  got  rubbed  off — but  with  all  that,  if  he 
be  indorsed  by  Republican  votes,  where  do  you  stand  ?  Plainly,  you  stand  ready- 
saddled,  bridled  and  harnessed,  and  waiting  to  be  driven  over  to  the  slavery  exten- 
sion camp  of  the  nation — just  ready  to  be  driven  over,  tied  together  in  a  lot — to  be 
driven  over,  every  man  with  a  rope  around  his  neck,  that  halter  being  held  by 
Judge  Douglas.  That  is  the  question.  If  Republican  men  have  been  in  earnest 
in  wluit  they  have  done,  I  think  they  had  better  not  do  it ;  but  I  think  that  the 
Republican  party  is  made  up  of  those  who,  as  far  as  they  can  peaceably,  will 
oppose  the  extension  of  slavery,  and  who  will  tope  for  its  ultimate  extino 


22 

lion.  If  they  believe  it  is  wrong  in  grasping  up  the  new  lands  of  the  conti 
nerit,  and  keeping  them  from  the  settlement  of  free  white  laborers,  who  want 
the  land  to  bring  up  their  families  upon  ;  if  they  are  in  earnest,  although  they  may 
make  a  mistake,  they  will  grow  restless,  and  the  time  will  come  when  they  will  come 
back  again  ami  reorganize,  if  not  by  the  same  name,  at  least  upon  the  same  princi- 
ples IH  (heir  party  now  has.  It  is  better,  then,  to  save  the  work  while  it  is  begun. 
You  have  done  the  labor ;  maintain  it — keep  it.  If  men  choose  to  serve  you,  go- 
with  Llu-in  ;  but  as  you  have  made  up  your  organization  upon  principle,  stand  by  it; 
for,  as  surely  as  God  reigns  over  you,  and  has  inspired  your  mind,  and  given  you  a 
sense  of  propriety,  and  continues  to  give  you  hope,  so  surely  will  yon  slill  cling  to 
these  i*ieas,  and  you  will  at  last  come  back  again  after  your  wanderings,  merely  to  do 
your  work  over  again. 

We  were  often — more  than  once  at  least — in  the  course  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech 
last,  night,  reminded  that  this  government  was  made  for  white  men — that  he  believed 
it  was  made,  for  white  men.  Well,  that  is  putting  it  into  a  shape  in  which  no  on? 
wants  to  deny  it ;  but  the  Judge  then  goes  into  his  passion  for  drawing  inferences 
tltal  are  not  warranted.  I  protest,  now  and  forever,  against  that  counterfeit  logic 
which  presumes  that  because  I  did  not  want  a  negro  woman  for  a  slave,  I  do  neces- 
sarily want  her  for  a  wife.  My  understanding  is  that  I  need  not  have  her  for 
either,  but,  as  God  made  us  separate,  we  can  leave  one  another  alo'-e,  and  do 
one  another  much  good  thereby.  There  are  white  men  enough  to  many  all 
the  white  women,  arid  enough  black  men  to  marry  all  the  black  women,  and  in 
God's  name  let  them  be  so  married.  The  Judge  regales  us  with  the  terrible 
enormities  that  take  place  by  the  mixture  of  races ;  that  the  inferior  race  bears  the 
superior  down.  Why,  Judge,  if  we  do  not  let  them  get  together  in  the  Territories 
they  won't  mix  there. 

A  voice — "  Three  cheers  for  Lincoln."  (The  cheers  were  given  with  a  hearty 
good  will.) 

Mr.  Lincoln — I  should  say  at  least  that  that  is  a  self-evident  truth. 

Now,  it  happens  that  we  meet  together  once  every  year,  sometimes  about  the  4th 
of  July,  for  some  reason  or  other.  These  4th  of  July  gatherings  I  suppose  have 
their  uses.  If  you  will  indulge  me,  I  will  state  what  I  suppose  to  be  some  of  them. 

We  are  now  a  mighty  nation  ;  we  are  thirty,  or  about  thirty  millions  of  people,  and 
we  own  and  inhabit  about  one-fifteenth  part  of  the  dry  land  of  the  whole  earth.  We 
rur>  our  im-mory  back  over  the  pages  of  history  for  about  eighty-two  years,  and  we 
disco  er  that,  we  were  then  a  very  small  people  in  point  of  numbers,  vastly  inferior 
to  what  we  are  now,  with  a  vastly  less  extent  of  country,  with  vastly  less  of  every- 
thing we  deem  desirable  among  men — we  look  upon  the  change  as  exceedingly  ad- 
vantageous to  us  and  to  our  posterity,  and  we  fix  upon  something  that  happened 
away  bank,  as  in  some  way  or  other  being  connected  with  this  rise  of  prosperity. 
We  find  a  race  of  men  living  in  that  day  whom  we  claim  as  our  fathers  and  grand- 
fathers ;  they  were  iron  men  ;  they  fought  for  the  principle  that  they  were  contending 
for ;  and  we  understood  that  by  what  they  then  did  it  has  followed  that  the  degree 
of  prosperity  which  we  now  enjoy  has  come  to  us.  We  hold  this  annual  celebration 
to  remind  ourselves  of  all  the  good  done  in  this  process  of  time,  of  how  it  was  done 
and  who  did  it,  and  how  we  are  historically  connected  with  it ;  and  we  go  from  these 
meetings  in  better  humor  with  ourselves — we  feel  more  attached  the  one  to  the  other, 
and  more  firmly  bound  to  the  country  we  inhabit.  In  every  way  we  are  better  men 
in  the  age,  and  race,  and  country  in  which  we  live,  for  these  celebrations.  But  after 
we  have  done  all  this  we  have  not  yet  reached  the  whole.  There  is  something  else 
connected  with  it.  We  have  besides  these,  men — descended  by  blood  from  our  an- 
cestors— among  us,  perhaps  half  our  people,  who  are  not  descendants  at  all  of  these 
men  ;  they  are  men  who  have  come  from  Europe — German,  Irish,  French  and  Scan- 
dinavian— men  that  have  come  from  Kurope  themselves,  or  whose  ancestors  have 
come  hither  and  settled  here,  finding  themselves  our  equals  in  all  things.  If  they 
look  back  through  this  history  to  trace  their  connection  with  those  days  by  blood, 


23 

they  find  they  have  none,  they  cannot  carry  themselves  back  into  that  glorious  epoch 
and  make  themselves  feel  that  they  are  part  of  us,  but  when  they  look  through  that 
old  Declaration  of  Independence,  they  find  that  those  old  men  say  that  "  We  hold 
these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are  created  equal,"  and  then  they  feel 
that  that  moral  sentiment  taught  in  that  day  evidences  their  relation  to  those  men, 
that  it  is  the  father  of  all  moral  principle  in  them,  and  that  they  have  a  right  to  claim 
it  as  though  they  were  blood  of  the  blood,  and  flesh  of  the  llesh.  of  the  men  who 
wrote  that  Declaration,  and  so  they  are.  That  is  the  electric  torcl  in  that  Declara- 
tion that  links  the  hearts  of  patriotic  and  liberty-loving  men  together,  that  will  link 
those  patriotic  hearts  as  long  as  the  love  of  freedom  exists  in  the  minds  of  men 
throughout  the  world. 

Now,  sirs,  for  the  purpose  of  squaring  things  with  this  idea  of  "  don't  care  if 
slavery  is  voted  up  or  voted  down,"  for  sustaining  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  for 
holding  {hat  the  Declaration  of  Independence  did  not  mean  anything  at  all, 
we  have  Judge  Douglas  giving  his  exposition  of  what  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence means,  and  we  have  him  saying  that  the  people  of  America  are 
equal  to  the  people  of  England.  According  to  his  construction,  you  Germans  are 
not  connected  with  it.  Now  I  ask  you  in  all  soberness,  if  all  these  things,  if  in- 
dulged in,  if  ratified,  if  confirmed  and  indorsed,  if  taught  to  our  children,  and  re 
peated  to  them,  do  not  tend  to  rub  out  the  sentiment  of  liberty  in  the  country,  and  to 
transform  this  Government  into  a  Government  of  some  other  form.  Those  argu- 
ments that  are  made,  that  the  inferior  race  are  to  be  treated  witli  as  much  allowance 
as  they  are  capable  of  enjoying;  that  as  much  is  to  be  done  for  them  as  their  condi- 
tion will  allow.  What  are  these  arguments  ?  They  are  the  arguments  that  kings 
have  made  for  enslaving  the  people  in  all  ages  of  the  world.  You  will  find  that  all 
the  arguments  in  favor  of  king-craft  were  of  this  class ;  they  always  bestrode  the 
necks  of  the  people,  not  that  they  wanted  to  do  it,  but  because  the  people  were  better 
off  for  being  ridden.  That  is  their  argument,  and  this  argument  of  the  Judge  is  the 
same  old  serpent  that  says  you  work  and  I  eat,  you  toil  and  I  will  enjoy  the  fruits  of 
it.  Turn  in  whatever  way  you  will — whether  it  come  from  the  mouth  of  a  King, 
an  excuse  for  enslaving  the  people  of  his  country,  or  from  the  mouth  of  men  of  one 
race  as  a  reason  for  enslaving  the  men  of  another  race,  it  is  all  the  same  old  serpent, 
and  I  hold  if  that  course  of  argumentation  that  is  made  for  the  purpose  of  convinc- 
ing the  public  mind  that  we  should  not  care  about  this,  should  be  granted,  it  does  not 
stop  with  the  negro.  I  should  like  to  know  if,  taking  this  old  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, which  declares  that  all  men  are  equal  upon  principle,  and  making  excep- 
tions to  it,  where  will  it  stop  ?  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  not 
another  say  it  does  not  mean  some  other  man?  If  that  declaration  is  not  the  truth, 
let  us  get  the  Statute  book,  in  which  we  find  it,  and  tear  it  out !  Who  is  so  bold  as 
to  do  it !  If  it  is  not  true  let  us  tear  it  out !  [cries  of  "  no,  no"]  ;  let  us  stick  to 
it  then,  let  us  stand  firmly  by  it  then. 

It  may  be  argued  that  there  are  certain  conditions  that  make  necessities  ;md  im- 
pose them  upon  us,  and  to  the  extent  that  a  necessity  is  imposed  upon  a  man,  lie 
must  submit  to  it.  I  think  that  was  the  condition  in  which  we  found  ourselves  when 
we  established  this  Government.  We  had  slavery  among  us,  we  could  not  get  our 
Constitution  unless  we  permitted  them  to  remain  in  slavery,  we  could  not  secure  the 
good  we  did  secure  if  we  grasped  for  more,  and  having  by  necessity  submitted  to 
that  much,  it  does  not  destroy  the  principle  that  is  the  charter  of  our  liberties.  Let 
that  charter  stand  as  our  standard. 

My  friend  has  said  to  me  that  I  am  a  poor  hand  to  quote  Scripture.  I  will  try  it 
again,  however.  It  is  said  in  one  of  the  admonitions  of  our  Lord,  "As  your  Father 
in  Heaven  is  perfect,  be  ye  also  perfect."  The  Savior,  I  suppose,  did  not  expect 
that  any  human  creature  could  be  perfect  as  the  Father  in  Heaven  ;  but  He  said, 
"As  your  Father  in  Heaven  is  perfect,  be  ye  also  perfect."  He  set  that  up  as  a 
standard,  and  he  who  did  most  toward  reaching  that  standard,  attained  the  highest 
degree,  of  moral  perfection.  So  I  say  in  relation  to  the  principle  that  all  men  are 


24 

created  equal,  let  it  be  as  nearly  reached  as  we  can.  If  we  cannot  give  freedom  to 
every  creature,  let  us  do  nothing  that  will  impose  slavery  upon  any  other  creature. 
Let  us  then  turn  this  Government  back  into  the  channel  in  which  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  originally  placed  it.  Let  us  stand  firmly  by  each  other.  If  we  do  not 
do  so  we  are  turning  in  the  contrary  direction,  that  our  friend  Judge  Douglas  pro- 
poses— not  intentionally — as  working  in  the  traces  tend  to  make  this  one  univer- 
sal slave  nation.  He  is  one  that  runs  in  that  direction,  and  as  such  I  resist  him. 

My  friends,  I  have  detained  you  about  as  long  as  I  desired  to  do,  and  I  have  only 
to  say,  let  us  discard  all  this  quibbling  about  this  man  and  the  other  man  —  this  race 
and  that  race  and  the  other  race  being  inferior,  and  therefore  they  must  be  placed  in 
an  inferior  position  —  discarding  our  standard  that  we  have  left  us.  Let  us  discard 
all  these  things,  and  unite  as  one  people  throughout  this  land,  until  we  shall  once 
more  stand  up  declaring  that  all  men  are  created  equal. 

My  friends,  I  could  not,  without  launching  off  upon  some  new  topic,  which  would 
detain  you  too  long,  continue  to-night  I  thank  you  for  this  most  extensive  audience 
that  you  have  furnished  me  to-night.  I  leave  you,  hoping  that  the  lamp  of  liberty 
will  burn  in  your  bosoms  until  there  shall  no  longer  be  a  doubt  that  all  men  are 
created  free  and  equal. 


SPEECH  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS, 

Delivered  at  Bloomington,  Itt.,  July  IGtk,  1858.     (Mr.  Lincoln  was  present) 


Senator  DOUGLAS  said: 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS  OF  MCLEAN  COUNTY  :  To  say  that 
I  am  profoundly  touched  by  the  hearty  welcome  you  have  extended  me,  and  by  the 
kind  and  complimentary  sentiments  you  have  expressed  toward  me,  is  but  a  feeble 
expression  of  the  feelings  of  my  heart. 

I  appear  before  you  this  evening  for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  the  course  which 
I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  pursue  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  upon  the  great 
public  questions  which  have  agitated  the  country  since  I  last  addressed  you.  I  am 
aware  that  my  Senatorial  course  has  been  arraigned,  not  only  by  political  foes,  but 
by  a  few  men  pretending  to  belong  to  the  Democratic  party,  and  yet  acting  in  al- 
liance with  the  enemies  of  that  party,  for  the  purpose  of  electing  Republicans  to 
Congress  in  this  State,  in  place  of  the  present  Democratic  delegation.  I  desire  your 
attention  whilst  I  address  you,  and  then  I  will  ask  your  verdict,  whether  I  have  not 
in  all  things  acted  in  entire  good  faith,  and  honestly  carried  out  the  principles,  the 
professions,  and  the  avowals  which  I  made  before  my  constituents,  previous  to  my 
going  to  the  Senate. 

During  the  last  session  of  Congress,  the  great  question  of  controversy  has  been 
the  admission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  I  need 
not  inform  you  that  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  I  took  bold,  determined,  and  un- 
relenting ground  in  opposition  to  that  Lecompton  Constitution.  My  reason  for  that 
course  is  contained  hi  the  fact  that  that  instrument  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the 
people  of  Kansas,  and  did  not  embody  their  will.  I  \old  it  to  be  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple in  all  free  governments — a  principle  asserted  in  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence,  and  underlying  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  the  Constitu- 
tion of  every  State  of  the  Union  —  that  every  people  ought  to  have  the  right  to 
form,  adopt  and  ratify  the  Constitution  under  which  they  are  to  live.  When  I  intro- 


duced  the  Nebraska  bill  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  1854,  I  incorporated 
in  it  the  provision  that  it  was  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  bill,  not  to  legislate 
slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  or  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  In  that  bill  the  pledge  was 
distinctly  made  that  the  people  of  Kansas  should  be  left  not  only  free,  but  perfectly 
free  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  to  suit  themselves ;  and  the 
question  arose,  when  the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  sent  into  Congress,  and  the 
admission  of  Kansas  not  only  asked,  but  attempted  to  be  forced  under  it,  whether  or 
not  that  Constitution  was  the  free  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas  ?  No  man 
pretends  that  it  embodied  their  will.  Every  man  in  America  knows  that  it  was  re- 
jected by  the  people  of  Kansas,  by  a  majority  of  over  ten  thousand,  before  the  at- 
tempt was  made  in  Congress  to  force  the  Territory  into  the  Union  under  that  Con- 
stitution. I  resisted,  therefore,  the  Lecompton  Constitution  because  it  was  a  violation 
of  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  upon  which  all  our  institutions  rest.  I  do 
not  wish  to  mislead  you,  or  to  leave  you  in  doubt  as  to  the  motives  of  my  action.  1 
did  not  oppose  the  Lecompton  Constitution  upon  the  ground  of  the  slavery  clause 
contained  in  it.  I  made  my  speech  against  that  instrument  before  the  vote  was  taken 
on  the  slavery  clause.  At  the  time  I  made  it  I  did  not  know  whether  that  clause 
would  be  voted  in  or  out ;  whether  it  would  be  included  in  the  Constitution,  or  ex- 
cluded from  it,  and  it  made  no  difference  with  me  what  the  result  of  the  vote  was, 
for  the  reason  that  I  was  contending  for  a  principle,  under  which  you  have  no 
more  right  to  force  a  free  State  upon  a  people  against  their  will,  than  you  have 
to  force  a  slave  State  upon  them  without  their  consent.  The  error  consisted 
in  attempting  to  control  the  free  action  of  the  people  of  Kansas  in  any  respect 
whatever.  It  is  no  argument  with  me  to  say  that  such  and  such  a  clause  of 
the  Constitution  was  not  palatable,  that  you  did  not  like  it ;  it  is  a  matter  of  no  con- 
sequence whether  you  in  Illinois  like  any  clause  in  the  Kansas  Constitution  or  not ; 
it  is  not  a  question  for  you,  but  it  is  a  question  for  the  people  of  Kansas.  They 
have  the  right  to  make  a  Constitution  in  accordance  with  their  own  wishes,  and  if 
you  do  not,  like  it  you  are  not  bound  to  go  there  and  live  under  it.  We  in  Illinois 
have  made  a  Constitution  to  suit  ourselves,  and  we  think  we  have  a  tolerably  good 
one ;  but  whether  we  have  or  not,  it  is  nobody's  business  but  our  own.  If  the  peo- 
ple in  Kentucky  do  not  like  it,  they  need  not  come  here  to  live  under  it ;  if  the  peo- 
ple of  Indiana  are  not  satisfied  with  it,  what  matters  it  to  us  ?  We,  and  we  alone, 
have  the  right  to  a  voice  in  its  adoption  or  rejection.  Reasoning  thus,  my  friends, 
my  efforts  were  directed  to  the  vindication  of  the  great  principle  involving  the  right 
of  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  form  and  regulate  their  own 
domestic  institutions  to  suit  themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  our 
common  country.  I  am  rejoiced  to  be  enabled  to  say  to  you  that  we  fought 
that  battle  until  we  forced  the  advocates  of  the  Lecoinpton  instrument  to  abandon 
the  attempt  of  inflicting  it  upon  the  people  of  Kansas,  without  first  giving  them  an 
opportunity  of  rejecting  it.  When  we  compelled  them  to  abandon  that  effort,  they 
resorted  to  a  scheme.  They  agreed  to  refer  the  Constitution  back  to  the  people  of 
Kansas,  thus  conceding  the  correctness  of  the  principle  for  which  I  had  contended, 
and  granting  all  I  had  desired,  provided  the  mode  of  that  reference  and  the  mode  of 
submission  to  the  people  had  been  just,  fair  and  equal.  I  did  not  consider  the  mode 
of  submission  provided,  in  what  is  known  as  the  "  English  "  bill,  a  fair  submission, 
and  for  this  simple  reason,  among  others :  It  provided,  in  effect,  that  if  the  people 
of  Kansas  would  accept  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  that  they  might  come  in  with 
35,000  inhabitants,  but  that,  if  they  rejected  it,  in  order  that  they  might  form  a  Con- 
stitution agreeable  to  their  own  feelings,  and  conformable  to  their  own  principles,  that 
they  should  not  be  received  into  the  Union  until  they  had  93,420  inhabitants.  In 
o.ther  words,  it  said  to  the  people,  if  you  will  come  into  the  Union  as  a  slaveholding 
State,  you  shall  be  admitted  with  35,000  inhabitants,  but  if  you  insist  on  being  a 
free  State,  you  shall  not  be  admitted  until  you  have  93,420.  I  was  not  willing  to 


26 

discriminate  between  free  States  and  slave  States  in  this  Confederacy.  I  will  not 
put  a  restriction  upon  a  slave  State  that  I  would  not  put  upon  a  free  State,  and 
I  wiJl  not  permit,  if  I  can  prevent  it,  a  restriction  being  put  upon  a  free  State 
whijh  is  not  applied  with  the  same  force  to  the  slaveholding  States.  Equality 
among  the  States  is  a  cardinal  and  fundamental  principle  in  our  Confederacy,  and 
cannot  be  violated  without  overturning  our  system  of  Government.  Hence  I 
demanded  that  the  free  States  and  the  slaveholding  States  should  be  kept  on 
an  exact  equality,  ono  with  the  other,  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  had 
placed  them.  If  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  slaveholding  State,  let  them  have 
it,  and  if  they  want  a  free  State  they  have  a  right  to  it,  and  it  is  not  for  the  people 
of  Illinois,  or  Missouri,  or  New  York,  or  Kentucky,  to  complain,  whatever  the  de- 
cision of  the  people  of  Kansas  may  be  upon  that  point. 

But  while  I  was  not  content  with  the  mode  of  submission  contained  in  the  English 
bill,  and  while  I  could  not  sanction  it  for  the  reason  that,  in  my  opinion,  it  violated  the 
great  principle  of  equality  among  the  different  States,  yet  when  it  became  the  law 
of  the  land,  and  under  it  the  question  was  referred  back  to  the  people  of  Kansas  for 
their  decision,  at  an  election  to  be  held  on  the  first  Monday  in  August  next,  I  bowed 
in  deference,  because  whatever  decision  the  people  shall  make  at  that  election  must 
be  final  and  conclusive  of  the  whole  question.  If  the  people  of  Kansas  accept  the 
proposition  submitted  by  Congress,  from  that  moment  Kansas  will  become  a  State  of 
the  Union,  and  there  is  no  way  of  keeping  her  out  if  you  should  try.  The  act  of 
admission  would  become  irrepealable :  Kansas  would  be  a  State,  and  there  would  be 
an  end  of  the  controversy.  On  the  other  hand,  if  at  that  election  the  people  of  Kan- 
sas shall  reject  the  proposition,  as  it  is  now  generally  thought  will  be  the  case,  from 
that  moment  the  Lecompton  Constitution  is  dead,  and  again  there  is  an  end  of  the 
controversy.  So  you  see  that  either  way,  on  the  3d  of  August  next,  the  Lecompton 
controversy  ceases  and  terminates  forever ;  and  a  similar  question  can  never  arise 
unless  some  man  shall  attempt  to  play  the  Lecompton  game  over  again.  But,  my 
fellow-citizens,  I  am  well  convinced  that  that  game  will  never  be  attempted  again ; 
it  has  been  so  solemnly  and  thoroughly  rebuked  during  the  last  session  of  Congress, 
that  it  will  find  but  few  advocates  in  the  future.  The  President  of  the  United  States, 
in  his  annual  message,  expressly  recommends  that  the  example  of  the  Minnesota 
case,  wherein  Congress  required  the  Constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  vote  of  the 
people  for  ratification  or  rejection,  shall  be  followed  in  all  future  cases ;  and  all 
we  have  to  do  is  to  sustain  as  one  man  that  recommendation,  and  the  Kansas  contro- 
versy can  never  again  arise. 

My  friends,  I  do  not  desire  you  to  understand  me  as  claiming  for  myself  any  spe- 
cial merit  for  the  course  I  have  pursued  on  this  question.  I  simply  did  my  duty,  a 
duty  enjoined  by  fidelity,  by  honor,  by  patriotism ;  a  duty  which  I  could  not  have 
shrunk  from,  in  my  opinion,  without  dishonor  and  faithlessness  to  my  constituency. 
Besides,  I  only  did  what  it  was  in  the  power  of  any  one  man  to  do.  There  were 
others,  men  of  eminent  ability,  men  of  wide  reputation,  renowned  all  over  America, 
who  led  the  van,  and  are  entitled  to  the  greatest  share  of  the  credit.  Foremost 
among  them  all,  as  he  was  head  and  shoulders  above  them  all,  was  Kentucky's  great 
and  gallant  statesman,  John  J.  Crittenden.  By  his  course  upon  this  question  he  has 
shown  himself  a  worthy  successor  of  the  immortal  Clay,  and  well  may  Kentucky 
be  proud  of  him.  I  will  not  withhold,  either,  the  meed  of  praise  due  the  Repub- 
lican party  in  Congress  for  the  course  which  they  pursued.  In  the  language  of  the 
New  York  Tribune,  they  came  to  the  Douglas  platform,  abandoning  their  own,  be- 
lieving that  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  they  would  in  that  mode  best  subserve 
the  interests  of  the  country.  My  friends,  when  I  am  battling  for  a  great  principle,  I 
want  aid  and  support  from  whatever  quarter  I  can  get  it  in  order  to  carry  out  that 
principle.  I  never  hesitate  in  my  course  when  I  find  those  who  on  all  former  oc- 
ca>ons  differed  from  me  upon  the  principle  finally  coming  to  its  support.  Nor  is  it 
for  me  to  inquire  into  the  motives  which  animated  the  Republican  members  of 
Congress  in  supporting  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill.  It  is  enough  for  me  that 


27 

in  that  ca^e  they  came  square  up  and  indorsed  the  great  principle  ot  the  Kansas-Ne- 
braska bill,  which  declared  that  Kansas  should  be  received  into  the  l;uion,  with  sla- 
very or  without,  as  its  Constitution  should  prescribe.  I  was  the  more  rejc  iced  at  the 
action  of  the  Republicans  on  that  occasion  for  another  reason.  I  could  not  forget, 
you  will  not  soon  forget,  how  unanimous  that  party  was,  in  1854,  in  declaring 
that  never  should  another  slave  State  be  admitted  into  this  Union  under  any  cir- 
cumstances whatever,  and  yet  we  find  that  during  this  last  winter  they  came  up 
and  voted  to  a  man  declaring  that  Kansas  should  come  in  as  a  State  with  slavery 
under  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  if  her  people  desired  it,  and  that  if  they  did 
not  that  they  might  form  a  new  Constitution,  with  slavery  or  without,  just  as  they 
pleased.  I  do  not  question  the  motive  when  men  do  a  good  act ;  I  give  them  credit 
for  the  act;  and  if  they  will  stand  by  that  principle  in  the  future, and  abandon  their 
heresy  of  "  no  more  slave  States  even  if  the  people  want  them,"  I  will  then  give 
them  still  more  credit.  I  am  afraid,  though,  .that  they  will  not  stand  by  it  in  the  fu- 
ture. If  they  do,  I  will  freely  forgive  them  all  the  abuse  they  heaped  upon  me  in 
1854,  for  having  advocated  and  carried  out  that  same  principle  in  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill. 

Illinois  stands  proudly  forward  as  a  State  which  early  took  her  position  in  favor 
of  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  as  applied  to  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States.  When  the  compromise  measure  of  1850  passed,  predicated  upon  that  prin- 
ciple, you  recollect  the  excitement  which  prevailed  throughout  the  northern  portion 
of  this  State.  I  vindicated  those  measures  then,  and  defended  myself  for  having 
voted  for  them,  upon  the  ground  that  they  embodied  the  principle  that  every  people 
ought  to  have  the  privilege  of  forming  and  regulating  their  own  institutions  to  suit 
themselves  —  that  each  State  had  that  right,  and  I  saw  no  reason  why  it  should  not 
be  extended  to  the  Territories.  When  the  people  of  Illinois  had  an  opportunity  of 
passing  judgment  upon  those  measures,  they  indorsed  them  by  a  vote  of  their  repre- 
sentatives in  the  Legislature  —  sixty -one  in  the  affirmative  and  only  four  in  the  nega- 
tive —  in  which  they  asserted  that  the  principle  embodied  in  the  measures  was  the 
birthright  of  freemen,  the  gift  of  Heaven,  a  principle  vindicated  by  our  revolu- 
tionary fathers,  and  that  no  limitation  should  ever  be  placed  upon  it,  either  in  the 
organization  of  a  Territorial  Government,  or  the  admission  of  a  State  into  the 
Union.  That  resolution  still  stands  unrepealed  on  the  journals  of  the  Legisla- 
ture of  Illinois.  In  obedience  to  it,  and  in  exact  conformity  with  the  principle,  I 
brought  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  requiring  that  the  people  should  be  left  per- 
fectly free  in  the  formation  of  their  institutions,  and  in  the  organization  of  their 
Government.  I  now  submit  to  you  whether  I  have  not  in  good  faith  redeemed 
that  pledge,  that  the  people  of  Kansas  should  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
regulate  their  institutions  to  suit  themselves.  And  yet,  while  no  man  can  arise 
in  any  crowd  and  deny  that  I  have  been  faithful  to  my  principles,  and  redeemed 
my  pledge,  we  find  those  who  are  struggling  to  crush  and  defeat  me,  for  the  very 
reason  that  I  have  been  faithful  in  carrying  out  those  measures.  We  find  the 
Republican  leaders  forming  an  alliance  with  professed  Lecompton  men  to  defeat 
every  Democratic  nominee  and  elect  Republicans  in  their  places,  and  aiding  and 
defending  them  in  order  to  help  them  break  down  Anti-Lecompton  men,  whom  they 
acknoAvledge  did  right  in  their  opposition  to  Lecompton.  The  only  hope  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  has  of  defeating  me  for  the  Senate  rests  in  the  fact,  that  I  was  faithful 
to  my  principles,  and  that  he  may  be  able  in  consequence  of  that  fact  to  form  a  coa- 
lition with  Lecompton  men,  who  wish  to  defeat  me  for  that  fidelity. 

This  is  one  element  of  strength  upon  which  he  relies  to  accomplish  his  object. 
He  hopes  he  can  secure  the  few  men  claiming  to  be  friends  of  the  Lecompton  Con- 
stitution, and  for  that  reason  you  will  find  he  does  not  say  a  word  against  the  Le- 
oompton  Constitution  or  its  supporters.  He  is  as  silent  as  the  grave  upon  that  sub- 
ject. Behold  Mr.  Lincoln  courting  Lecompton  votes,  in  order  that  he  may  go  to  the 
Senate  as  the  representative  of  Republican  principles !  You  know  that  the  alli- 
ance exists.  I  think  you  will  find  that  it  will  ooze  out  before  the  contest  is  over. 


28 

Every  Republican  paper  takes  ground  with  my  Leeompton  enemies,  encourag- 
ing them,  stimulating  them  in  their  opposition  to  me  and-  styling  my  friends  bolters 
from  the  Democratic  party,  and  their  Leeompton  allies  the  true  Democratic  party  of 
the  country.  If  they  think  that  they  can  mislead  and  deceive  the  people  of  Illinois, 
or  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  by  that  sort  of  an  unnatural  and  unholy  alliance,  I 
think  they  show  very  little  sagacity,  or  give  the  people  very  little  credit  for  intelli- 
gence. It  must  be  a  contest  of  principle.  Either  the  radical  abolition  principles 
of  Mr.  Lincoln  must  be  maintained,  or  the  strong,  constitutional,  national  Demo- 
cratic principles  with  which  I  am  identified  must  be  carried  out. 

There  can  be  but  two  great  political  parties  in  this  country.  The  contest  this 
year  and  in  1860  must  necessarily  be  between  the  Democracy  and  the  Republicans, 
if  we  can  judge  from  present  indications.  My  whole  life  has  been  identified  with 
the  Democratic  party.  I  have  devoted  all  of  my  energies  to  advocating  its  princi- 
ples and  sustaining  its  organization.  In  this  State  the  party  was  never  better  united 
or  more  harmonious  than  at  this  time.  The  State  Convention  which  assembled  on 
the  2d  of  April,  and  nominated  FONDEY  and  FRP;NCH,  was  regularly  called  by 
the  State  Central  Committee,  appointed  by  the  previous  State  Convention  for  that 
purpose.  The  meetings  in  each  county  in  the  State  for  the  appointment  of  delegates 
to  the  Convention  were  regularly  called  by  the  county  committees,  and  the  pro- 
ceedings in  every  county  in  the  State,  as  well  as  in  .the  State  Convention,  were 
regular  in  all  respects.  No  Convention  was  ever  more  harmonious  in  its  action,  or 
showed  a  more  tolerant  and  just  spirit  toward  brother  Democrats.  The  leaders 
of  the  party  there  assembled  declared  their  unalterable  attachment  to  the  time- 
honored  principles  and  organization  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  to  the  Cincinnati 
platform.  They  declared  that  that  platform  was  the  only  authoritative  exposition 
of  Democratic  principles,  and  that  it  must  so  stand  until  changed  by  another  National 
Convention  ;  that  in  the  meantime  they  would  make  no  new  tests,  and  submit  to  none; 
that  they  would  proscribe  no  Democrat  or  permit  the  proscription  of  Democrats  be- 
cause of  their  opinion  upon  Lecomptonism,  or  upon  any  other  issue  which  has  arisen  ; 
but  would  recognize  all  men  as  Democrats  who  remained  inside  of  the  organization, 
preserved  the  usages  of  the  party,  and  supported  its  nominees.  These  bolting  Dem- 
ocrats who  now  claim  to  be  the  peculiar  friends  of  the  National  Administration,  and 
have  formed  an  alliance  with  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Republicans  for  the  purpose  of 
defeating  the  Democratic  party,  have  ceased  to  claim  fellowship  with  the  Demo- 
ocratic  organization ;  have  entirely  separated  themselves  from  it,  and  are  endeavor- 
ring  to  build  up  a  faction  in  the  State,  not  with  the  hope  or  expectation  of  electing 
any  one  man  who  professes  to  be  a  Democrat  to  office  in  any  county  in  the  State, 
but  merely  to  secure  the  defeat  of  the  Democratic  nominees  and  the  election  of 
Republicans  in  their  places.  What  excuse  can  any  honest  Democrat  have  for  aban- 
doning the  Democratic  organization  and  joining  with  the  Republicans  to  defeat  our 
nominees,  in  view  of  the  platform  established  by  the  State  Convention  ?  They  cannot 
pretend  that  they  were  proscribed  because  of  their  opinions  upon  Leeompton  or 
any  other  question,  for  the  Convention  expressly  declared  that  they  recognized  all  as 
good  Democrats  who  remained  inside  of  the  organization,  and  abided  by  the  nomimi- 
tions.  If  the  question  is  settled  or  is  to  be  considered  as  finally  disposed  of  by 
the  V3te  on  the  3d  of  August,  what  possible  excuse  can  any  good  Democrat  make 
for  keeping  up  a  division  for  the  purpose  of  prostrating  his  party,  after  that  election 
is  over  and  the  controversy  has  terminated  ?  It  is  evident  that  all  who  shall  keep  up 
this  warfare  for  the  purpose  of  dividing  and  destroying  the  party,  have  made  up 
their  minds  to  abandon  the  Democratic  organization  for  ever,  and  to  join  those  for 
whose  benefit  they  are  now  trying  to  distract  our  party,  and  elect  Republicans  in 
die  place  of  the  Democratic  nominees. 

I  submit  the  question  to  you  whether  I  hare  been  right  or  wrong  in  the  course 
I  have  pursued  in  Congress.  Arid  I  submit,  also,  whether  I  have  not  redeemed  in 
good  faith  every  pledge  I  have  made  to  you?  Then,  my  friends,  the  question 
recurs,  whether  I  shall  be  sustained  or  rejected  ?  If  you  are  of  opinion  that  Mr. 


29 

Lincoln  will  advance  the  interests  of  Illinois  better  than  I  can ;  that  he  will  sustain 
her  honor  and  her  dignity  higher  than  it  has  been  in  my  power  to  do;  that  your  in- 
terests, and  the  interests  of  your  children,  require  his  election  instead  of  mine,  it  is 
your  duty  to  give  him  your  support.  If,  on  the  contrary,  you  think  that  my  adher- 
ence to  these  great  fundamental  principles  upon  which  our  Government  is  founded 
is  the  true  mode  of  sustaining  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country,  and  maintain- 
ing the  perpetuity  of  the  Republic,  I  then  ask  you  to  stand  by  me  in  the  efforts  I 
have  made  to  that  end. 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  consideration  of  the  two  points  at  issue  between  Mr. 
Lincoln  and  myself.  The  Republican  Convention,  when  it  assembled  at  Springfield, 
did  me  and  the  country  the  honor  of  indicating  the  man  who  was  to  be  their  standard- 
bearer,  and  the  embodiment  of  their  principles,  in  this  State.  I  owe  them  my  grati- 
tude for  thus  making  up  a  direct  issue  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself.  I  shall 
have  no  controversies  of  a  personal  character  with  Mr.  Lincoln.  1  have  known  him 
well  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  I  have  known  him,  as  you  all  know  him,  a  kind- 
hearted,  amiable  gentleman,  a  right  good  fellow,  a  worthy  citizen,  of  eminent  ability 
as  a  lawyer,  and  I  have  no  doubt,  sufficient  ability  to  make  a  good  Senator.  The 
question,  then,  for  you  to  decide  is,  whether  his  principles  are  more  in  accordance 
with  the  genius  of  our  free  institutions,  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Republic,  than 
those  which  I  advocate.  He  tells  you,  in  his  speech  made  at  Springfield,  before  the 
Convention  which  gave  him  his  unanimous  nomination,  that : 

"  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand." 

"  I  believe  this  Government  cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free.** 

"  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved — I  don't  expect  the  house  to  fall — but 
I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.'* 

"  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other." 

That  is  the  fundamental  principle  upon  which  he  sets  out  in  this  campaign.  Well, 
I  do  not  suppose  you  will  believe  one  word  of  it  when  you  come  to  examine  it 
carefully,  and  see  its  consequences.  Although  the  Republic  has  existed  from  1789  to 
this  day,  divided  into  free  States  and  slave  States,  yet  we  are  told  that  in  the  future 
it  cannot  endure  unless  they  shall  become  all  free  or  all  slave.  For  that  reason  he 
says,  as  the  gentleman  in  the  crowd  says,  that  they  must  be  all  free.  He  wishes 
to  go  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  in  order  to  carry  out  that  line  of  public 
policy  which  will  compel  all  the  States  in  the  South  to  become  free.  How  is  he 
going  to  do  it  ?  Has  Congress  any  power  over  the  subject  of  slavery  in  Ken- 
tucky, or  Virginia,  or  any  other  State  of  this  Union  ?  How,  then,  is  Mr.  Lincoln 
going  to  carry  out  that  principle  which  he  says  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  this 
Union,  to  wit :  That  slavery  must  be  abolished  in  all  the  States  of  the  Union,  or 
must  be  established  in  them  all?  You  convince  the  South  that  they  must  either 
establish  slavery  in  Illinois,  and  in  every  other  free  State,  or  submit  to  its  abolition- 
in  every  Southern  State,  and  you  invite  them  to  make  a  warfare  upon  the  Northern 
States  an  order  to  establish  slavery,  for  the  sake  of  perpetuating  it  at  home.  Thus, 
Mr.  Lincoln  invites,  by  his  proposition,  a  war  of  sections,  a  war  between  Illinois  and1 
Kentucky,  a  war  between  the  free  States  and  the  slave  States,  a  war  between  the 
North  and  the  South,  for  the  purpose  of  either  exterminating  slavery  in  every  South • 
frn  State,  or  planting  it  in  every  Northern  State.  He  tells  you  that  the  safety  of 
this  Republic,  that  the  existence  of  this  Union,  depends  upon  that  warfare  being  car- 
ried on  until  one  section  or  the  other  shall  be  entirely  subdued.  The  States  must  all 
be  free  or  slave,  for  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  That  is  Mr.  Lin- 
coln's argument  upon  that  question.  My  friends,  is  it  possible  to  preserve  peace  be- 
tween the  North  and  the  South  if  such  a  doctrine  shall  prevail  in  either  section  of 
the  Union  ?  "Will  you  ever  submit  to  a  warfare  waged  by  the  Southern  States  to 
establish  slavery  in  Illinois  ?  What  man  in  Illinois  would  not  lose  the  last  drop 
of  his  heart's  blood  before  he  would  submit  to  the  institution  of  slavery  being 
forced  upon  us  by  the  other  States,  against  our  will  ?  And  if  that  be  true  of  us, 
what  Southern  man  would  not  shed  the  last  drop  of  his  heart's  blood  to  prevent  lili- 
3 


so 

nois,  01  any  other  Northern  State,  from  interfering  to  abolish  slavery  in  his  Stater 
Each  of  these  States  is  sovereign  under  the  Constitution;  and  if  we  wish  to  pre- 
serve our  liberties,  the  reserved  rights  and  sovereignty  of  each  and  every  State  must 
be  maintained.  I  have  said  on  a  former  occasion,  and  I  here  repeat,  that  it  is  neither 
desirable  nor  possible  to  establish  uniformity  in  the  local  and  domestic  institutions  of 
all  the  States  of  this  Confederacy.  And  why?  Because  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  rests  upon  the  right  of  every  State  to  decide  all  its  local  and  domestic 
institutions  for  itself.  It  is  not  possible,  therefore,  to  make  them  conform  to 
each  other  unless  we  subvert  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  No,  sir. 
that  cannot  be  done.  God  forbid  that  any  man  should  ever  make  the  attempt.  Let 
that  Constitution  ever  be  trodden  under  foot  and  destroyed,  and  there  will  not  be 
wisdom  and  patriotism  enough  left  to  make  another  that,  will  work  half  so  well. 
Our  safety,  our  liberty,  depends  upon  preserving  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  as  our  fathers  made  it,  inviolate,  at  the  same  time  maintaining  the  reserved 
rights  and  the  sovereignty  of  each  State  over  its  local  and  domestic  institutions,  against 
Federal  authority,  or  any  outside  interference. 

The  difference  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself  upon  this  point  is,  that  he  goes  for 
a  combination  of  the  Northern  States,  or  the  organization  of  a  sectional  political 
party  in  the  free  States  to  make  war  on  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  Southern 
States,  and  to  prosecute  that  war  until  they  shall  all  be  subdued,  and  made  to  conform 
to  such  rules  as  the  North  shall  dictate  to  them.  I  am  aware  that  Mr.  Lincoln,  on 
Saturday  night  last,  made  a  speech  at  Chicago  for  the  purpose,  as  he  said,  of  ex- 
plaining his  position  on  this  question.  I  have  read  that  speech  with  great  care,  and 
will  do  him  the  justice  to  say  that  it  is  marked  by  eminent  ability  and  great  success 
in  concealing  what  he  did  mean  to  say  in  his  Springfield  speech.  His  answer  to 
this  point,  which  I  have  been  arguing,  is,  that  he  never  did  mean,  and  that  I  ought  to 
know  that  he  never  intended  to  convey  the  idea,  that  he  wished  the  "  people  of  the 
free  States  to  enter  into  the  Southern  States  and  interfere  with  slavery."  Well,  I 
never  did  suppose  that  he  ever  dreamed  of  entering  into  Kentucky,  to  make  war  upon 
her  .institutions ;  nor  will  any  Abolitionist  ever  enter  into  Kentucky  to  wage  such  war. 
Their  mode  of  making  war  is  not  to  enter  into  those  States  where  slavery  exists,  and 
there  interfere,  and  render  themselves  responsible  for  the  consequences.  Oh  no !  They 
stand  on  this  side  of  the  Ohio  river  and  shoot  across.  They  stand  in  Bloomington, 
and  shake  their  fists  at  the  people  of  Lexington ;  they  threaten  South  Carolina  from 
Chicago.  And  they  call  that  bravery !  But  they  are  very  particular,  as  Mr. 
Lincoln  says,  not  to  enter  into  those  States  for  the  purpose  of  interfering  with 
the  institution  of  slavery  there.  I  am  not  only  opposed  to  entering  into  the  slave 
States,  for  the  purpose  of  interfering  with  their  institutions,  but  I  am  opposed  to 
a  sectional  agitation  to  control  the  institutions  of  other  States.  I  am  opposed  to  or 
ganizing  a  sectional  party,  which  appeals  to  Northern  pride,  and  Northern  pas 
sion  and  prejudice,  against  Southern  institutions,  thus  stirring  up  ill  feeling  and  hot 
blood  between  brethren  of  the  same  Republic.  I  am  opposed  to  that  whole  system 
of  sectional  agitation,  which  can  produce  nothing  but  strife,  but  discord,  but  hostir  ty, 
anfl,  finally,  disunion.  And  yet  Mr.  Lincoln  asks  you  to  send  him  to  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  in  order  that  he  may  carry  out  that  great  principle  of  his, 
tl  at  all  the  States  must  be  slave  or  all  must  be  free.  I  repeat,  how  is  he  to  curry 
it  out  when  he  gets  to  the  Senate  ?  Does  he  intend  to  introduce  a  bill  to  abolisn 
slavery  in  Kentucky  ?  Does  he  intend  to  introduce  a  bill  to  interfere  with  slavery 
in  Virginia?  How  is  he  to  accomplish  what  he  professes  must  be  done  in  order  to 
save  the  Union  ?  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  lawyer,  sagacious  and  able  enough  to  tell  you 
how  he  proposes  to  do  it.  I  ask  Mr.  Lincoln  how  it  is  that  he  proposes  ultimately 
to  bring  about  this  uniformity  in  each  and  all  the  States  of  the  Union.  There 
is  but  one  possible  mode  which  I  can  see,  and  perhaps  Mr.  Lincoln  intends 
to  pursue  it;  that  is,  to  introduce  a  proposition  into  the  Senate  to  change  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in  order  that  all  the  State  Legislatures  may 
be  abolished,  State  sovereignty  blotted  out,  and  tJ»«  power  conferred  upon  Con- 


31 

gress  to  make  local  laws  and  establish  the  domestic  institutions  and  police  regu- 
lations uniformly  throughout  the  United  States.  Are  you  prepared  for  such  a 
change  in  the  institutions  of  your  country?  Whenever  you  shall  have  blotted 
out  the  State  sovereignties,  abolished  the  State  Legislatures,  and  consolidated 
all  the  power  in  the  Federal  Government,  you  will  have  established  a  consolidat- 
ed Empire  as  destructive  to  the  liberties  of  the  people  and  the  rights  of  the 
citizen  as  that  of  Austria,  or  Russia,  or  any  other  despotism  that  rests  upon  the  necks 
of  the  people.  How  is  it  possible  for  Mr.  Lincoln  to  carry  out  his  cherished  princi- 
ple of  abolishing  slavery  everywhere  or  establishing  it  everywhere,  except  by  th»- 
mode  which  I  have  pointed  out — by  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  to  the  effect 
that  I  have  suggested  ?  There  is  no  other  possible  mode.  Mr.  Lincoln  intends  re- 
sorting to  that,  or  else  he  means  nothing  by  the  great  principle  upon  which  he  desires 
to  be  elected.  My  friends,  I  trust  that  we  will  be  able  to  get  him  to  define  what  he 
does  mean  by  this  Scriptural  quotation  that  "  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand;"  that  the  Government  cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free; 
that  it  must  be  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Who  among  you  expects  to  live,  or 
have  his  children  live,  until  slavery  shall  be  established  in  Illinois  or  abolished  in 
South  Carolina?  Who  expects  to  see  that  occur  during  the  lifetime  of  ourselves  or 
our  children  ? 

There  is  but  one  possible  way  in  which  slavery  can  be  abolished,  and  that  is  by 
leaving  a  State,  according  to  the  principle  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  perfectly 
free  to  form  and  regulate  its  institutions  in  its  own  way.  That  was  the  principle 
upon  which  this  Republic  was  founded,  and  it  is  under  the  operation  of  that  prin- 
ciple that  we  have  been  able  to  preserve  the  Union  thus  far.  Under  its  opera- 
tions, slavery  disappeared  from  New  Hampshire,  from  Rhode  Island,  from  Con- 
necticut, from  New  York,  from  New  Jersey,  from  Pennsylvania,  from  six  of  the 
twelve  original  slaveholding  States ;  and  this  gradual  system  of  emancipation  went, 
on  quietly,  peacefully  and  steadily,  so  long  as  we  in  the  free  States  minded  our  own 
business,  and  left  our  neighbors  alone.  But  the  moment  the  Abolition  Societies  were 
organized  throughout  the  North,  preaching  a  violent  crusade  against  slavery  in  the 
Southern  States,  this  combination  necessarily  caused  a  counter-combination  in  the 
South,  and  a  sectional  line  was  drawn  which  was  a  barrier  to  any  further  emancipa- 
tion. Bear  in  mind  that  emancipation  has  not  taken  place  in  any  one  State  since  the 
Freesoil  party  was  organized  as  a  political  party  in  this  country.  Emancipation  went 
on  gradually  in  State  after  State  so  long  as  the  free  States  were  content  with  man- 
aging their  own  affairs  and  leaving  the  South  perfectly  free  to  do  as  they  pleased ; 
but  the  moment  the  North  said  we  are  powerful  enough  to  control  you  of  the  South, 
the  moment  the  North  proclaimed  itself  the  determined  master  of  the  South,  that 
moment  the  South  combined  to  resist  the  attack,  and  thus  sectional  parties  were 
formed  and  gradual  emancipation  ceased  in  all  the  Northern  slaveholding  States. 
And  yet  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  view  of  these  historical  facts,  proposes  to  keep  up 
this  sectional  agitation,  band  all  the  Northern  States  together  in  one  political  party, 
elect  a  President  by  Northern  votes  alone,  and  then,  of  course,  make  a  Cabinet 
composed  of  Northern  men,  and  administer  the  Government  by  Northern  men 
only,  denying  all  the  Southern  States  of  this  Union  any  participation  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  affairs  whatsoever.  I  submit  to  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  whether  such  a 
line  of  policy  is  consistent  with  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country?  Can  the 
Union  endure  under  such  a  system  of  policy  ?  He  has  taken  his  position  in  favor  of 
sectional  agitation  and  sectional  warfare.  I  have  taken  mine  in  favor  of  securing 
peace,  harmony  and  good- will  among  all  the  States,  by  permitting  each  to  mind  its 
own  business,  and  discountenancing  any  attempt  at  interference  on  the  part  of  one 
State  with  the  domestic  concerns  of  the  others. 

Mr.  Lincoln  makes  another  issue  with  me,  and  he  wishes  to  confine  the  contest  to 
these  two  issues.  I  accept  the  other  as  readily  as  the  one  to  which  I  have  already 
referred.  The  other  issue  is  a  crusade  against  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  because  of  its  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case.  .Mv  fellow-citizens,  I  have  no 


32 

issue  to  make  with  the  Supreme  Court.  I  have  no  crusade  to  preach  against 
tbat  august  body.  I  have  no  warfare  to  make  upon  it.  I  receive  the  decision 
of  the  Judges  of  that  Court,  when  pronounced,  as  the  final  adjudication  upon 
fcll  questions  within  their  jurisdiction.  It  would  be  perfectly  legitimate  and  proper 
for  Mr.  Lincoln,  myself,  or  any  other  lawyer,  to  go  before  the  Supreme  Court 
Mhd  argue  any  question  tliat  might  arise  there,  taking  either  side  of  it,  and  en- 
forcing it  with  all  our  ability,  zeal,  and  energy,  but  when  the  decision  is  pronounced. 
that  decision  becomes  the  law  of  the  land,  and  he,  and  you,  and  myself,  and  every 
other  good  citizen,  must  bow  to  it,  and  yield  obedience  to  it.  Unless  we  respect 
am  bow  in  deference  to  the  final  decisions  of  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  in 
<MH  country,  we  are  driven  at  once  to  anarchy,  to  violence,  to  mob  law,  and 
tht?n3  is  no  security  left  for  our  property,  or  our  own  civil  rights.  What 
tpiofects  your  property  but  the  law,  and  who  expounds  the  law  but  the  judicial 
tribunals  ;  and  if  an  appeal  is  to  be  taken  from  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  in  all  cases  where  a  person  does  not  like  the  adjudi- 
cation, to  whom  is  that  appeal  to  be  taken  ?  Are  we  to  appeal  from  the  Supreme 
Court  to  a  county  meeting  like  this  ?  And  shall  we  here  re-argue  the  question  and  re- 
verse the  decision  ?  If  so,  how  are  we  to  enforce  our  decrees  after  we  have  pronounced 
them  ?  Does  Mr.  Lincoln  intend  to  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  to 
V  Republican  caucus,  or  a  town  meeting  ?  To  whom  is  he  going  to  appeal  ?  ["  To 

nd  Love- 


"  and  shouts  of  laughter.]  Why,  if  I  understand  aright,  Lincoln  and 
joy.  are  co-appellants  in  a  joint  suit,  and  inasmuch  as  they  are  so,  he  would  not  cer- 
tainly appeal  from  the  Supreme  Court  to  his  own  partner  to  decide  the  case  for  him. 
Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you  that  he  is  opposed  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
tn  the  Dred  Scott  case.  Well,  suppose  he  is  ;  what  is  he  going  to  do  about  it  ? 
I  never  got  beat  in  a  law  suit  in  my  life  that  I  was  not  opposed  to  the 
d,!ci.-iion,  and  if  I  hud  it  before  the  Circuit  Court  I  took  it  up  to  the  Supreme  Court, 
where,  if  I  got  beat  again,  I  thought  it  better  to  say  no  more  about  it,  as  I  did  not 
know  of  any  lawful  mode  of  reversing  the  decision  of  the  highest  tribunal  on  earth. 
To  whom  is  Mr.  Lincoln  going  to  appeal?  Why,  he  says  he  is  going  to  appeal  to 
Congress.  Let  us  see  how  he  will  appeal  to  Congress.  He  tells  us  that  on  the  8th  of 
March,  1820,  Congress  passed  a  law  called  the  Missouri  Compromise,  prohibiting 
slavery  forever  in  all  the  territory  West  of  the  Mississippi  and  North  of  the  Missouri 
Iwe  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes,  that  Dred  Scott,  a  slave  in  Missouri, 
was  taken  by  his  master  to  Fort  Snelling,  in  the  present  State  of  Minnesota,  situated 
on  the  West  branch  of  the  Mississippi  river,  and  consequently  in  the  Territory  where 
slavery  was  prohibited  by  the  Act  of  1820,  and  that  when  Dred  Scott  appealed  for 
hid  freedom  in  consequence  of  having  been  taken  into  a  free  Territory,  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  decided  that  Dred  Scott  did  not  become  free  by  being 
taken  into  that  Territory,  but  that  having  been  carried  back  to  Missouri,  was  yet  a 
slave.  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to  appeal  from  that  decision  and  reverse  it.  He  doe* 
not  intend  to  reverse  it  as  to  Dred  Scott.  Oh,  no  !  But  he  will  reverse  it  so  that 
i«,  shall  not  stand  as  a  rule  in  the  future.  How  will  he  do  it  ?  He  says  that  if  he  is 
elected  to  the  Senate,  he  will  introduce  and  pass  a  law  just  like  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise, prohibiting  slavery  again  in  all  the  Territories.  Suppose  he  does  re- 
enaot  the  same  law  which  the  Court  has  pronounced  unconstitutional,  will  that 
make  it  constitutional?  If  the  Act  of  1820  was  unconstitutional  in  consequence 
of  Congress  having  no  power  to  pass  it,  will  Mr.  Lincoln  make  it  constitutional  by 
passing  it  again  ?  What  clause  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  for 
an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  Congress  ?  If  my  reading  of 
that  instrument  is  correct,  it  is  to  the  effect  that  that  Constitution  and  all  laws  made  in 
pursuance  of  it  are  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  anything  in  the  Constitution  or 
laws  of  a  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  Hence,  you  will  find  that  only  such 
acts  of  Congress  are  laws  as  are  made  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution.  When 
Congress  has  passed  an  act,  and  put  it  on  the  statute  book  as  law,  who  is  to  decide 
whether  that  act  Lt  '<*.  conformity  with  the  Constitution  or  not?  The  Constitution  of 


33 

the  United  States  tells  you.  It  has  provided  that  the  judicial  power  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  vested  in  a  Supreme  Court,  and  sucli  interior  Courts  as  Congress  may 
from  time  to  time  ordain  and  establish.  Thus,  by  the  Constitution,  the  Supreme 
Court  is  declared,  in  so  many  words,  to  be  the  tribunal,  and  the  only  tribunal,  which 
is  competent  to  adjudicate  upon  the  constitutionality  of  an  act  of  Congress.  He  tell* 
you  tha,,  that  Court  has  adjudicated  the  question,  and  decided  that  an  act  of  Congress 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Territory  is  unconstitutional  and  void  ;  and  yet  he  says  he 
is  going  to  pass  another  like  it.  What  for  ?  Will  it  be  any  more  valid  ?  Will  bu 
be  able  to  convince  the  Court  that  the  second  act  is  valid  when  the  first  is  invalid  ami 
void  ?  What  good  does  it  do  to  pass  a  second  act  ?  Why,  it  will  have  the  effect  .& 
arraign  the  Supreme  Court  before  the  people,  and  to  bring  them  into  all  the  political 
discussions  of  the  country.  Will  that  do  any  good  ?  Will  it  inspire  any  more  con- 
fidence in  the  judicial  tribunals  of  the  country  ?  What  good  can  it  do  to  wage  this 
war  upon  the  Court,  arraying  it  against  Congress,  and  Congress  against  the  Court? 
The  Constitution  of  theUuited  States  has  said  that  this  Government  shall  be  divided 
into  three  separate  and  distinct  branches,  the  executive,  the  legislative  and  the  judi- 
cial, and  of  course  each  one  is  supreme  and  independent  of  the  other  within  the  circle 
of  its  own  powers.  The  functions  of  Congress  are  to  enact  the  statutes,  the  province 
of  the  Court  is  to  pronounce  upon  their  validity,  and  the  duty  of  the  Executive  is  to 
carry  the  decision  into  effect  when  rendered  by  the  Court.  And  yet,  notwithstanding 
the  Constitution  makes  the  decision  of  the  Court  final  in  regard  to  the  validity  of  an 
act  of  Congress,  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to  reverse  that  decision  by  passing  another  act 
of  Congress.  When  he  has  become  convinced  of  the  folly  of  the  proposition, 
perhaps  he  will  resort  to  the  same  subterfuge  that  I  have  found  others  of  his 
party  resort  to,  which  is  to  agitate  and  agitate  until  he  can  change  the  Supreme 
Court  and  put  other  men  in  the  places  of  the  present  incumbents.  I  wonder  whether 
Mr.  Lincoln  is  i-ight  sure  that  he  can  accomplish  that  reform.  He  certainly  will  not 
be  able  to  get  rid  of  the  present  Judges  until  they  die,  and  from  present  appear- 
ances I  think  they  have  as  good  security  of  life  as  he  has  himself.  I  am  afraid 
that  my  friend  Lincoln  would  not  accomplish  this  task  during  his  own  life- 
time, and  yet  he  wants  to  go  to  Congress  to  do  it  all  in  six  years.  Do  you 
think  that  he  can  persuade  nine  Judges,  or  a  majority  of  them,  to  die  in  that 
six  years,  just  to  accommodate  him  ?  They  are  appointed  Judges  for  life,  and 
according  to  the  present  organization,  new  ones  cannot  be  appointed  during 
that  time ;  but  he  is  going  to  agitate  until  they  die,  and  then  have  the  Presi- 
dent appoint  good  Republicans  in  their  places.  He  had  better  be  quite  sure 
that  he  gets  a  Republican  President  at  the  same  time  to  appoint  them.  He 
wants  to  have  a  Republican  President  elected  by  Northern  votes,  not  a  Southern 
man  participating,  and  elected  for  the  purpose  of  placing  none  but  Republicans 
on  the  bench,  and  consequently,  if  he  succeeds  in  electing  that  President, 
and  succeeds  in  persuading  the  present  Judges  to  die,  in  order  that  their  vacan- 
cies may  be  filled,  that  the  President  will  then  appoint  their  successors.  And  by 
what  process  will  he  appoint  them  ?  He  first  looks  for  a  man  who  has  the  legal 
Qualifications,  perhaps  he  takes  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  says,  "  Mr.  Lincoln,  would  you  not 
like  to  go  on  the  Supreme  bench  ?"  "  Yes,"  replies  Mr.  Lincoln.  "  Well,"  le- 
turns  the  Republican  President,  "I  cannot  appoint  you  until  you  give  m<;  a 
pledge  as  to  how  you  will  decide  in  the  event  of  a  particular  question  com- 
ing before  you."  What  would  you  think  of  Mr.  Lincoln  if  he  would  consent 
to  give  that  pledge?  And  yet  he  is  going  to  prosecute  a  war  until  he  get* 
the  present  Judges  out,  and  then  catechise  each  man  and  require  a  pledge  before  his 
appointment  as  to  how  he  will  decide  each  question  that  may  arise  upon  points  affect- 
ing the  Republican  party.  Now,  my  friends,  suppose  this  scheme  was  practi- 
cal, I  ask  you  what  confidence  you  would  have  in  a  Court  thus  constituted — 
a  Court  composed  of  partisan  Judges,  appointed  on  political  grounds,  selected  with  a 
view  to  the  decision  of  questions  in  a  particular  way,  and  pledged  in  regard  to  a  de- 
cision before  the  argument,  and  without  reference  to  the  peculiar  state  of  the  facts. 


34 

Would  such  a  Court  command  the  respect  of  the  country?  If  the  Repub- 
lican party  cannot  trust  Democratic  Judges,  how  can  they  expect  us  to  trust 
Republican  Judges,  when  they  have  been  selected  in  advance  for  the  purpose  of 
packing  a  decision  in  the  event  of  a  case  arising  ?  My  fellow-citizens,  whenever  par- 
tisan politics  shall  be  carried  on  to  the  bench  ;  whenever  the  Judges  shall  be  arraigned 
upon  the  stump,  and  their  judicial  conduct  reviewed  in  town  meetings  and  caucuses; 
whenever  the  independence  and  integrity  of  the  judiciary  shall  be  tampered  with  to 
the  extent  of  rendering  them  partial,  blind  and  suppliant  tools,  what  security  will  you 
have  for  your  rights  and  your  liberties?  I  therefore  take  issue  with  Mr.  Lin- 
coln directly  in  regard  to  this  warfare  upon  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  I  accept  the  decision  of  that  Court  as  it  was  pronounced.  Whatever  my 
individual  opinions  may  be,  I,  as  a  good  citizen,  am  bound  by  the  laws  of  the  land, 
as  the  Legislature  makes  them,  as  the  Court  expounds  them,  and  as  the  exei  utive 
officers  administer  them.  I  am  bound  by  our  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it, 
and  as  it  is  our  duty  to  support  it.  I  am  bound,  as  a  good  citizen,  to  sustain  the 
constituted  authorities,  and  to  resist,  discourage,  and  beat  down,  by  all  lawful  and 
peaceful  means,  all  attempts  at  exciting  mobs,  or  violence,  or  any  other  revolutionary 
proceedings  against  the  Constitution  and  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Lincoln  is  alarmed  for  fear  that,  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  slavery  will 
go  into  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States.  All  I  have  to  say  is  that,  with  or 
without  that  decision,  slavery  will  go  »just  where  the  people  want  it,  and  not  one  inch 
further.  You  have  had  experience  upon  that  subject  in  the  case  of  Kansas.  You 
have  been  told  by  the  Republican  party  that,  from  1854,  when  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  passed,  down  to  last  winter,  that  slavery  was  sustained  and  supported  in  Kansas 
by  the  laws  of  what  they  called  a  "bogus"  Legislature.  And  how  many  slaves 
were  there  in  the  Territory  at  the  end  of  last  winter?  Not  as  many  at  the  end  of 
that  period  as  there  wrere  on  the  day  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  passed.  There  was 
quite  a  number  of  slaves  in  Kansas,  taken  there  under  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
and  in  spite  of  it,  before  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  passed,  and  now  it  is  asserted  that 
there  are  not  as  many  there  as  there  were  before  the  passage  of  the  bill,  notwith- 
standing that  they  had  local  laws  sustaining  and  encouraging  it,  enacted,  as  the  Re- 
publicans say,  by  a  "  bogus  "  Legislature,  imposed  upon  Kansas  by  an  invasion  from 
Missouri.  Why  has  not  slavery  obtained  a  foothold  in  Kansas  under  these  circum- 
stances ?  Simply  because  there  was  a  majority  of  her  people  opposed  to  slavery, 
and  every  slaveholder  knew  that  if  he  took  his  slaves  there,  the  moment  that  majority 
got  possession  of  the  ballot-boxes,  and  a  fair  election  was  held,  that  moment  slavery 
would  be  abolished  and  he  would  lose  them.  For  that  reason,  such  owners  as  took 
their  slaves  there  brought  them  back  to  Missouri,  fearing  that  if  they  remained  they 
would  be  emancipated.  Thus  you  see  that  under  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty, 
slavery  has  been  kept  out  of  Kansas,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  for  the  first  three 
years  they  had  a  Legislature  in  that  Territory  favorable  to  it.  I  tell  you,  my  friends, 
il  is  impossible  under  our  institutions  to  force  slavery  on  an  unwilling  people.  If 
this  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  asserted  in  the  Nebraska  bill  be  fairly  carried 
out,  by  letting  the  people  decide  the  question  for  themselves,  by  a  fair  vote,  at  a  fair 
election,  and  with  honest  returns,  slavery  will  never  exist  one  day,  or  one  hour,  in 
any  Territory  against  the  unfriendly  legislation  of  an  unfriendly  people.  I  care  not 
how  the  Dred  Scott  decision  may  have  settled  the  abstract  question  g;o  far  as  the 
practical  result  is  concerned;  for,  to  use  the  language  of  an  eminent  Southern  Sena- 
tor, on  this  very  question : 

"  I  do  not  care  a  fig  which  way  the  decision  shall  be,  for  it  is  of  no  particular  con- 
sequence ;  slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  or  an  hour,  in  any  Territory  or  State,  unless  it 
has  affirmative  laws  sustaining  and  supporting  it,  furnishing  police  regulations  and 
remedies,  and  an  omission  to  furnish  them  would  be  as  fatal  as  a  constitutional  pro- 
hibition. Without  affirmative  legislation  in  its  favor,  slavery  could  not  exist  any 
longer  than  a  new-born  infant  could  survive  under  the  heat  of  the  sun,  on  a  barren 
rock,  without  prote  Hion.  It  would  wilt  and  die  for  the  want  of  support." 


35 

Hence,  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  want  slavery,  they  will  encourage  it  by  pass- 
ing affirmatory  law.-,  and  the  necessary  police  regulations,  patrol  laws  ami  slave  code  ; 
if  they  do  not  want  it  they  will  withhold  that  legislation,  and  by  withholding  it  slavery 
is  as  dead  as  it'  it  was  prohibited  by  a  constitutional  prohibition,  especially 
if,  in  addition,  their  legislation  is  unfriendly,  as  it  would  be  if  they  were  opposed  to 
it.  They  could  pass  such  local  laws  and  police  regulations  as  would  drive  slavery 
out  in  one  day,  or  one  hour,  if  they  were  opposed  to  it,  and  therefore,  so  far  as  the 
question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  is  concerned,  so  far  as  the  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty  is  concerned,  in  its  practical  operation,  it  matters  not  how  the  Dred  &  ott 
case  may  be  decided  with  reference  to  the  Territories.  My  own  opinion  on  that  law 
point  is  well  known.  It  is  shown  by  my  votes  and  speeches  in  Congress.  But  bt; 
it  as  it  may,  the  question  was  an  abstract  question,  inviting  no  practical  results,  and 
whether  slavery  shall  exist  or  shall  not  exist  in  any  State  or  Territory,  will  depend 
upot  whether  the  people  are  for  or  against  it,  and  which  ever  way  they  shall  decide 
it  in  any  Territory  or  in  any  State,  will  be  entirely  satisfactory  to  me. 

But  I  must  now  bestow  a  few  words  upon  Mr.  Lincoln's  main  objection  to  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  He  is  not  going  to  submit  to  it.  Not  that  he  is  going  to  make 
war  upon  it  with  force  of  arms.  But  he  is  going  to  appeal  and  reverse  it  in  some 
way ;  he  cannot  tell  us  how.  I  reckon  not  by  a  writ  of  error,  because  I  do  not 
know  where  he  would  prosecute  that,  except  before  an  Abolition  Society. 
And  when  he  appeals,  he  does  not  exactly  tell  us  to  whom  he  will  appeal, 
except  it  be  the  Republican  party,  and  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  the  Repub- 
lican party,  under  the  Constitution,  has  judicial  powers ;  but  he  is  going  to 
appeal  from  it  and  reverse  it,  either  by  an  act  of  Congress,  or  by  turning  out  the 
judges,  or  in  some  other  way.  And  why  ?  Because  he  says  that  that  decision  de- 
prives the  negro  of  the  benefits  of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  which  entitles  the  citizens  of  each  State  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities 
of  citizens  of  the  several  States.  Well,  it  is  very  true  that  the  decision  does  have 
that  effect.  By  deciding  that  a  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  of  course  it  denies  to  him  the 
rigiits  arid  privileges  awarded  to  citizens  of  the  United  States.  It  is  this  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  will  not  submit  to.  Why  ?  For  the  palpable  reason  that  he  wishes  to  con- 
fer upon  the  negro  all  the  rights,  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  several 
States.  I  will  not  quarrel  with  Mr.  Lincoln  for  his  views  on  that  subject.  I  have 
no  doubt  he  is  conscientious  in  them.  I  have  not  the  slightest  idea  but  that  he  con- 
scientiously believes  that  a  negro  ought  to  enjoy  and  exercise  all  the  rights  and  priv- 
ileges given  to  white  men ;  but  I  do  not  agree  with  him,  and  hence  I  cannot  concur 
with  him.  I  believe  that  this  Government  of  ours  was  founded  on  the  white  basis. 
I  believe  that  it  was  established  by  white  men ;  by  men  of  European  birth, 
or  descended  of  European  races,  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their  pos 
terity  in  all  time  to  come.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  was  the  design  or  intention 
of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  or  the  frarners  of  the 
Constitution  iv  include  negroes,  Indians,  or  other  inferior  races,  with  white 
men,  as  citizens.  Our  fathers  had  at  that  day  seen  the  evil  consequences  of 
conferring  civil  and  political  rights  upon  the  Indian  and  negro  in  the  Spanish 
and  French  colonies  on  the  American  continent  and  the  adjacent  islands. 
In  Mexico,  in  Central  America,  in  South  America  and  in  the  West  India  Islands*, 
where  the  Indian,  the  negro,  and  men  of  all  colors  and  all  races  are  put  on  an  equality 
by  law,  the  effect  of  political  amalgamation  can  be  seen.  Ask  any  of  those  gallant 
young  men  in  your  own  county,  who  went  to  Mexico  to  fight  the  battles  of  their 
country,  in  what  friend  Lincoln  considers  an  unjust  and  unholy  war,  and  hear  what 
they  will  tell  you  in  regard  to  the  amalgamation  of  races  in  that  country.  Amalga- 
mation there,  first  political,  then  social,  has  led  to  demoralization  and  degradation, 
until  it  has  reduced  that  people  below  the  point  of  capacity  for  self-government. 
Our  fathers  knew  what  the  effect  of  it  would  be,  and  from  the  time  they  planted 
foot  on  the  American  continent,  not  only  those  who  landed  at  Jamestown,  but  at 
Plymouth  Rock  and  all  other  points  on  the  coast,  they  pursued  the  policy  of  confining 


36 

civil  and  political  rights  to  the  white  race,  and  excluding  the  negro  in  all  cases. 
Still  Mr.  Lincoln  conscientiously  believes  that  it  is  his  duty  to  advocate  negro  citi- 
zenship. He  wants  to  give  the  negro  the  privilege  of  citizenship.  He  quotes  Scrip- 
ture again,  and  says :  "  As  your  Father  in  Heaven  is  perfect,  be  ye  also  perfect.** 
And  he  applies  that  Scriptural  quotation  to  all  classes ;  not  that  he  expects  us  all  to 
be  as  perfect  as  our  Master,  but  as  nearly  perfect  as  possible.  In  other  words,  he  is 
willing  to  give  the  negro  an  equality  under  the  law,  in  order  that  he  may  approach  as 
near  perfection,  or  an  equality  with  the  white  man,  as  possible.  To  this  same  end  he 
quotes  the  Declaration  of  Independence  in  these  words:  "We  hold  these  truths  to 
be  self-evident,  that  all  men  were  created  equal,  and  endowed  by  their  Creator  with 
certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness ; "  and  goes  on  to  argue  that  the  negro  was  included,  or  intended  to  be  ir.cluded 
hi  that  Declaration  by  the  signers  of  the  paper.  He  says  that  by  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  therefore,  all  kinds  of  men,  negroes  included,  were  created  equal  and 
endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  and  further,  that  the  right 
of  the  negro  to  be  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man  is  a  Divine  right  conferred  by 
the  Almighty,  and  rendered  inalienable  according  to  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence. Hence  no  human  law  or  constitution  can  deprive  the  negro  of  that  equality 
with  the  white  man  to  which  he  is  entitled  by  Divine  law.  ["Higher  law/']  Yes, 
higher  law.  Now,  I  do  not  question  Mr.  Lincoln's  sincerity  on  this  point.  He  be- 
lieves that  the  negro,  by  the  Divine  law,  is  created  the  equal  of  the  white  man,  and 
that  no  human  law  can  deprive  him  of  that  equality,  thus  secured ;  and  he  contends 
that  the  negro  ought  therefore  to  have  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship  on 
an  equality  with  the  white  man.  In  order  to  accomplish  this,  the  first  thing  that 
would  have  to  be  done  in  this  State  would  be  to  blot  out  of  our  State  Constitution 
that  clause  which  prohibits  negroes  from  coming  into  this  State,  and  making  it  an 
African  colony,  and  permit  them  to  come  and  spread  over  these  charming  prairies 
until  in  midday  they  shall  look  black  as  night.  When  our  friend  Lincoln  gets  all 
his  colored  brethren  around  him  here,  he  will  then  raise  them  to  perfection  as  fast  as 
possible,  and  place  them  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man,  first  removing  all  legal 
restrictions,  because  they  are  our  equals  by  Divine  law,  and  there  should  be  no  such 
restrictions.  He  wants  them  to  vote.  I  am  opposed  to  it.  If  they  had  a  vote,  I 
reckon  they  would  all  vote  for  him  in  preference  to  me,  entertaining  the  views  I  do. 
But  that  matters  not.  The  position  he  has  taken  on  this  question  not  only 
presents  him  as  claiming  for  them  the  right  to  vote,  but  their  right  under  the 
Divine  law  and  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  to  be  elected  to  office,  to  become 
members  of  the  Legislature,  to  go  to  Congress,  to  become  Governors,  or  United 
States  Senators,  or  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court;  and  I  suppose  that  when 
they  control  that  court  they  will  probably  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  decision. 
He  is  going  to  bring  negroes  here,  and  give  them  the  right  of  citizenship,  the 
right  of  voting,  and  the  right  of  holding  office  and  sitting  on  juries,  and  what 
else?  Why,  he  would  permit  them  to  marry,  would  he  not?  And  if  he 
gives  them  that  right,  I  suppose  he  will  let  them  marry  whom  they  please,  provided 
they  marry  their  equals.  If  the  Divine  law  declares  that  the  white  man  is  the 
equal  of  the  negro  woman — that  they  are  on  a  perfect  equality,  I  suppose  he  admits 
the  right  of  the  negro  woman  to  marry  the  white  man.  In  other  words,  his  doctrine 
.Rat  the  negro,  by  Divine  law,  is  placed  on  a  perfect  equality  with  the  white  man, 
and  that  that  equality  is  recognized  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  leads  him 
necessarily  to  establish  negro  equality  under  the  law ;  but  whether  even  then  they 
would  be  so  in  fact  would  depend  upon  the  degree  of  virtue  and  intelligence  they 
possessed,  and  certain  other  qualities  that  are  matters  of  taste  rather  than  of  law 
I  do  not  understand  Mr.  Lincoln  as  saying  that  he  expects  to  make  them  our  equalo 
socially,  or  by  intelligence,  nor  in  fact  as  citizens,  but  that  he  wishes  to  make  them 
our  equals  under  the  law,  and  then  say  to  them,  "  as  your  Master  in  Heaven  is  per- 
fect, be  ye  also  perfect." 

Well,  I  confess  to  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  that  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  that  sys- 


37 

tern  of  abolition  philosophy.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  signers  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  had  any  reference  to  negroes  when  they  used  the  expres- 
sion that  all  men  were  created  equal,  or  that  they  had  any  reference  to  the 
Chinese  or  Coolies,  the  Indians,  the  Japanese,  or  any  other  inferior  race.  They 
were  speaking  of  the  white  race,  the  European  race  on  this  continent,  and 
their  descendants,  and  emigrants  who  should  come  here.  They  were  speaking 
only  of  the  white  race,  and  never  dreamed  that  their  language  would  be  construed 
to  include  the  negro.  And  now  for  the  evidence  of  that  fact.  At  the  time  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  was  put  forth,  declaring  the  equality  of  all  men, 
every  one  of  the  thirteen  colonies  was  a  slaveholding  colony,  and  every  man 
who  signed  that  Declaration  represented  a  slaveholding  constituency.  Did  they  in- 
tend, when  they  put  their  signatures  to  that  instrument,  to  declare  that  their  own 
slaves  were  on  an  equality  with  them ;  that  they  were  made  their  equals  by  Di- 
vine law,  and  that  any  human  law  reducing  them  to  an  inferior  position,  was  void, 
as  being  in  violation  of  Divine  law  ?  Was  that  the  meaning  of  the  signers  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence?  Did  JEFFERSON  and  HENRY,  and  LEE  —  did  any 
of  the  signers  of  that  instrument,  or  all  of  them,  on  the  day  they  signed  it,  give 
their  slaves  freedom  ?  History  records  that  they  did  not.  Did  they  go  further,  and 
put  the  negro  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man  throughout  the  country  ?  They 
did  not.  And  yet  if  they  had  understood  that  Declaration  as  including  the  negro, 
which  Mr.  Lincoln  holds  they  did,  they  would  have  been  bound,  as  conscientious 
men,  to  have  restored  the  negro  to  that  equality  which  he  thinks  the  Almighty  in- 
tended they  should  occupy  with  the  white  man.  They  did  not  do  it.  Slavery 
was  abolished  in  only  one  State  before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  in  1789, 
and  then  in  others  gradually,  down  to  the  time  this  abolition  agitation  began,  and 
it  has  not  been  abolished  in  one  since.  The  history  of  the  country  shows  that 
neither  the  signers  of  the  Declaration,  or  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  ever  sup- 
posed it  possible  that  their  language  would  be  used  in  an  attempt  to  make  this 
nation  a  mixed  nation  of  Indians,  negroes,  whites  and  mongrels.  I  repeat,  that  our 
whole  history  confirms  the  proposition,  that  from  the  earliest  settlement  of  the  col- 
onies down  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  our  fathers  proceeded  on  the  white  basis,  making  the  white 
people  the  governing  race,  but  conceding  to  the  Indian  and  negro,  and  all  inferior 
races,  all  the  rights  and  all  the  privileges  they  could  enjoy  consistent  with  the  safety 
of  the  society  in  which  they  lived.  That  is  my  opinion  now.  I  told  you 
that  humanity,  philanthropy,  justice  and  sound  policy  required  that  we  should 
give  the  negro  every  right,  every  privilege,  every  immunity  consistent  with 
the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  State.  The  question  then  naturally  arises,  what 
are  those  rights  and  privileges,  and  what  is  the  nature  and  extent  of  them? 
My  answer  is,  that  that  is  a  question  which  each  State  and  each  Territory 
must  decide  for  itself.  We  have  decided  that  question.  We  have  said  that  in  this 
State  the  negro  shall  not  be  a  slave,  but  that  he  shall  enjoy  no  political  rights — that 
negro  equality  shall  not  exist.  I  am  content  with  that  position.  My  friend  Lincoln 
is  not.  He  thinks  that  our  policy  and  our  laws  on  that  subject  are  contrary  to  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence.  He  thinks  that  the  Almighty  made  the  negro  his  equal  and 
his  brother.  For  my  part  I  do  not  consider  the  negro  any  kin  to  me, 
nor  to  any  other  white  man;  but  I  would  still  carry  my  humanity  arid  my 
philanthropy  to  the  extent  of  giving  him  every  privilege  and  every  immunity 
that  he  coull  enjoy,  consistent  with  our  own  good.  We  in  Illinois  have  the 
right  to  decide  upon  that  question  for  ourselves,  and  we  are  bound  to  allow 
every  other  State  to  do  the  same.  Maine  allows  the  negro  to  vote  on  an 
equality  with  the  white  man.  I  do  not  quarrel  with  our  friends  in  Maine  for  that. 
If  they  think  it  wise  and  proper  in  Maine  to  put  the  negro  on  an  equality  with  the 
white  man,  and  allow  him  to  go  to  the  polls  and  negative  the  vote  of  a  white 
man,  it  is  their  business  and  not  mine.  On  the  other  hand,  New  York  permits  a 


negro  to  vote,  provided  he  owns  $250  worth  of  property.  New  York  thinks  that  a 
negro  ought  to  be  permitted  to  vote,  provided  he  is  rich,  but  not  otherwise.  They 
allow  the  aristocratic  negro  to  vote  there.  I  never  saw  the  wisdom,  the  pro- 
priety or  the  justice  of  that  decision  on  the  part  of  New  Tork,  and  yet  it 
never  occurred  to  rne  that  I  had  a  right  to  find  fault  with  that  State.  It  is  her  bus- 
iness ;  she  is  a  sovereign  State,  and  has  a  right  to  do  as  she  pleases,  and  if  she  will 
takv  care  of  her  own  negroes,  making  such  regulations  concerning  them  as  suit  her, 
and  let.  us  alone,  I  will  mind  my  business,  and  not  interfere  with  her.  In  Ken- 
tucky they  will  not  give  a  negro  any  political  or  any  civil  rights.  I  shall  not 
argue  thf^  question  whether  Kentucky  in  so  doing  has  decided  right  or  wrong, 
wisely  or  unwisely.  It  is  a  question  for  Kentucky  to  decide  for  herself.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  Kentuckians  have  consciences  as  well  as  ourselves ;  they  have  as 
keen  a  perception  of  their  religious,  moral  and  social  duties  as  we  have,  mid  I  am 
willing  that  they  shall  decide  this  slavery  question  for  themselves,  and  be  ac- 
countable to  their  God  for  their  action.  It  is  not  for  me  to  arraign  them  for 
what  they  do.  I  will  not  judge  them  lest  I  shall  be  judged.  Let  Kentucky 
mind  her  own  business,  and  take  care  of  her  negroes,  and  we  attend  to  our  own 
afllujs,  and  take  care  of  our  negroes,  and  we  will  be  the  best  of  friends;  but  if 
Kentucky  attempts  to  interfere  with  us,  or  we  with  her,  there  will  be  strife,  there 
will  be  discord,  there  will  be  relentless  hatred,  there  will  be  everything  but  fra- 
ternal feeling  and  brotherly  love.  It  is  not  necessary  that  you  should  enter  Ken- 
tucky and  interfere  in  that  State,  to  use  the  language  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  It  is  just 
as  offensive  to  interfere  from  this  State,  or  send  your  missiles  over  there.  I  care 
not  whether  an  enemy,  if  he  is  going  to  assault  us,  shall  actually  come  into  our 
State,  or  come  along  the  line,  and  throw  his  bomb-shells  over  to  explode  in  our 
midst.  Suppose  England  should  plant  a  battery  on  the  Canadian  side  of  the 
Niagara  river,  opposite  Buffalo,  and  throw  bomb-shells  over,  which  would  ex- 
plode in  Main  street,  in  that  city,  and  destroy  the  buildings,  and  that,  when  we 
protested,  she  would  say,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  she  never  dreamed 
of  coming  into  the  United  States  to  interfere  with  us,  arid  that  she  was  just  throwing 
her  bombs  over  the  line  from  her  own  side,  which  she  had  a  right  to  do,  would  that 
explanation  satisfy  us?  So  it  is  with  Mr.  Lincoln.  He  is  not  going  into  Kentucky, 
but  he  will  plant  his  batteries  on  this  side  of  the  Ohio,  where  he  is  safe  and  secure  for 
a  retreat,  and  will  throw  his  bomb-shells — his  abolition  documents — over  the  river, 
and  will  carry  on  a  political  warfare,  and  get  up  strife  between  the  North  and  the 
South  until  he  elects  a  sectional  President,  reduces  the  South  to  the  condition  of  de- 
pendent colonies,  raises  the  negro  to  an  equality,  and  forces  the  South  to  submit 
to  the  doctrine  that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand  —  that  the  Union 
divided  into  half  slave  States  and  half  free  cannot  endure — that  they  must  all  be 
slave  or  they  must  all  be  free,  and  that  as  we  in  th,e  North  are  in  the  majority,  we 
will  not  permit  them  to  be  all  slave,  and  therefore  they  in  the  South  must  consent  to 
the  States  all  being  free.  Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  submit  to  you  whether  these  doctrines 
are  consistent  with  the  peace  and  harmony  of  this  Union  ?  I  submit  to  you  whether 
they  are  consistent  with  our  duties  as  citizens  of  a  common  confederacy;  whether  they 
are  consistent  with  the  principles  which  ought  to  govern  brethern  of  the  same  family? 
I  recognize  all  the  people  of  these  States,  North  and  South,  East  and  Wesl,  old  or 
new,  Atlantic  or  Pacific,  as  our  brethren,  flesh  of  one  flesh,  and  I  will  do  no  act  unto 
them  that  I  would  not  be  willing  they  should  do  unto  us.  I  would  apply  the 
same  Christian  rule  to  the  States  of  this  Union  that  we  are  taught  to  apply  to 
individuals,  u  do  unto  others  as  you  would  have  others  do  unto  you/'  and  this 
would  secure  peace.  Why  should  this  slavery  agitation  be  kept  up?  Does 
it  benefit  the  white  man  or  the  slave?  Who  does  it  benefit  except  the  Re- 
publican politicians,  who  use  it  as  their  hobby  to  ride  into  office?  Why,  I  re- 
peat, should  it  be  continued?  Why  cannot  we  be  content  to  administer  this 
Government  as  it  was  made  —  a  confederacy  of  sovereign  and  independent  States? 
Let  us  recognize  the  sovereignty  and  independence  of  each  State,  refrain  from 


39 

interfering  with  the  domestic  institutions  and  regulations  of  other  States,  permit  the 
Territories  and  new  States  to  decide  their  institutions  for  themselves,  as  we  did 
wh?n  we  were  in  their  condition;  blot  out  these  lines  of  North  and  South,  and 
resort  back  to  these  lines  of  State  boundaries  which  the  Constitution  has  marked 
out,  and  engraved  upon  the  face  of  the  country;  have  no  other  dividing  lines 
but  these,  and  we  will  be  one  united,  harmonious  people,  with  fraternal  feelings,  and 
no  discord  or  dissension. 

These  are  my  views  arid  these  are  the  principles  to  which  I  have  devoted  all  my 
energies  since  1850,  when  I  acted  side  by  side  with  the  immortal  Clay  and  the  irod- 
like  Webster  in  that  memorable  struggle  in  which  Whigs  and  •  Democrat**  united 
upon  a  common  platform  of  patriotism  and  the  Constitution,  throwing  aside  paitisan 
feelings  in  order  to  restore  peace  and  harmony  to  a  distracted  country.  And  when 
I  stood  beside  the  death-bed  of  Mr.  Clay,  and  heard  him  refer  with  feelings  and 
emotions  of  the  deepest  solicitude  to  the  welfare  of  the  country,  and  saw  that  he 
looked  upon  the  principle  embodied  in  the  great  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  the 
principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  the  doctrine  of  leaving  each  State  and  Territory  free 
to  decide  its  institutions  for  itself,  as  the  only  means  by  which  the  peace  of  the 
country  could  be  preserved  and  the  Union  perpetuated,  —  I  pledged  him,  on 
that  death-bed  of  his,  that  so  long  as  I  lived  my  energies  should  be  devoted 
to  the  vindication  of  that  principle,  and  of  his  fame  as  connected  with  it. 
I  gave  the  same  pledge  to  the  great  expounder  of  the  Constitution,  he  who 
has  been  called  the  "  god-like  Webster."  I  looked  up  to  Clay  and  him  as  a 
son  would  to  a  father,  and  I  call  upon  the  people  of  Illinois,  and  the  people  of  the 
whole  Union,  to  bear  testimony,  that  never  since  the  sod  has  been  laid  upon  the 
graves  of  these  eminent  statesmen  have  I  failed,  on  any  occasion,  to  vindicate  the 
principle  with  which  the  last  great,  crowning  acts  of  their  lives  were  identified,  or  to 
vindicate  their  names  whenever  they  have  been  assailed ;  and  now  my  life  and 
energy  are  devoted  to  this  great  work  as  the  means  of  preserving  this  Union. 
This  Union  can  only  be  preserved  by  maintaining  the  fraternal  feeling  between  the 
North  and  the  South,  the  East  and  the  West.  If  that  good  feeling  can  be  preserved, 
the  Union  will  be  as  perpetual  as  the  fame  of  its  great  founders.  It  can  be  main- 
tained by  preserving  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  the  right  of  each  State  and  each 
Territory  to  settle  its  domestic  concerns  for  itself,  and  the  duty  of  each  to  refrain 
from  interfering  with  the  other  in  any  of  its  local  or  domestic  institutions.  Let  that 
be  done,  and  the  Union  will  be  perpetual ;  let  that  be  done,  and  this  Republic,  which 
began  with  thirteen  States,  and  which  now  numbers  thirty-two,  which,  when  it  be- 
gan, only  extended  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Mississippi,  but  now  reaches  to  the  Pa- 
cifii!,  may  yet  expand,  North  and  South,  until  it  covers  the  whole  Continent,  and 
becomes  one  vast  ocean-bound  confederacy.  Then,  my  friends,  the  path  of  duty, 
of  honor,  of  patriotism,  is  plain.  There  are  a  few  simple  principles  to  be  pre- 
served. Bear  in  mind  the  dividing  line  between  State  rights  and  Federal  authority; 
let  us  maintain  the  great  principles  of  popular  sovereignty,  of  State  rights,  and  of 
the  Federal  Union  as  the  Constitution  has  made  it,  and  this  Republic  will  endure 
forever. 

I  thank  you  kindly  for  the  patience  with  which  you  have  listened  to  me.  I 
fear  I  have  wearied  you.  I  have  a  heavy  day's  work  before  me  to-morrow. 
I  have  several  speeches  to  make.  My  friends,  in  whose  hands  I  am,  are  tax- 
ing me  beyond  human  endurance,  but  I  shall  take  the  helm  and  control  them 
hereafter.  T  am  profoundly  grateful  to  the  people  of  McLean  for  the  reception  they 
have  given  me,  and  the  kindness  with  which  they  have  listened  to  me.  I  remember 
that  when  I  first  came  among  you  here,  twenty-five  years  ago,  that  I  was  prosecuting 
attorney  in  this  district,  and  that  my  earliest  efforts  were  made  here,  when  my  defi- 
ciencies were  too  apparent,  I  am  afraid,  to  be  concealed  from  any  one.  I  remember 
the  courtesy  and  kindness  with  which  I  was  uniformly  treated  by  you  all,  and  when- 
ever I  can  recognize  the  face  of  one  of  your  old  citizens,  it  is  like  meeting  an  old 
and  cherished  friend.  I  come  among  you  with  a  heart  filled  with  gratitude  for  past 


40 

favors.  I  have  been  with  you  but  little  for  the  past  few  years  on  account  of  my 
official  duties.  I  intend  to  visit  you  again  before  the  campaign  is  over.  I  wish  to 
speak  to  your  whole  people.  I  wish  them  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  coriectness  of 
my  course,  and  the  soundness  of  the  principles  which  I  have  proclaimed.  If  you  do 
not  approve  my  principles,  I  cannot  ask  your  support.  If  you  believe  that  the  elec- 
tion of  Mr.  Lincoln  would  contribute  more  to  preserve  the  harmony  of  the  country, 
to  perpetuate  the  Union,  and  more  to  the  prosperity  and  the  honor  and  glory  of  the 
State,  then  it  is  your  duty  to  give  him  the  preference.  If,  on  the  contrary,  you  be- 
lieve that  I  have  been  faithful  to  my  trust,  and  that  by  sustaining  me  you  will  give 
greater  strength  and  efficiency  to  the  principles  which  I  have  Expounded,  I  shall  then 
be  grateful  for  your  support.  1  renew  my  profound  thanks  for  your  attention. 


SPEECH  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS, 

Delivered  July  17,  1858,  at  Springfield,  Hi.     (Mr.  Lincoln  was  not  present.) 


MR.  CHAIRMAN,  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS  OP  SPRINGFIELD  AND  OLD  SANGAMON 
My  heart  is  filled  with  emotions  at  the  allusions  which  have  been  so  happily  and  so 
kindly  made  in  the  welcome  just  extended  to  me — a  welcome  so  numerous  and  so 
enthusiastic,  bringing  me  to  my  home  among  my  old  friends,  that  language  cannot 
express  my  gratitude.  I  do  feel  at  home  whenever  I  return  to  old  Sangamon  and 
receive  those  kind  and  friendly  greetings  which  have  never  failed  to  meet  me  when 
I  have  come  among  you  ;  but  never  bafore  have  I  had  such  occasion  to  be  grateful 
and  to  be  proud  of  the  manner  of  the  reception  as  on  the  present.  While  I  am 
willing,  sir,  to  attribute  a  part  of  this  demonstration  to  those  kind  and  friendly  per- 
sonal relations  to  which  you  have  referred,  I  cannot  conceal  from  myself  that  the 
controlling  and  pervading  element  in  this  great  mass  of  human  beings  is  devotion  to 
that  principle  of  self-government  to  which  so  many  years  of  my  life  have  been  de- 
voted ;  and  rejoice  more  in  considering  it  an  approval  of  my  support  of  a  cardinal 
principle  than  I  would  if  I  could  appropriate  it  to  myself  as  a  personal  compliment. 

You  but  speak  rightly  when  you  assert  that  during  the  last  session  of  Congress 
there  was  an  attempt  to  violate  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  upon  which  our 
free  institutions  rest.  The  attempt  to  force  the  Lecompton  Constitution  upon  the 
people  of  Kansas  against  their  will,  would  have  been,  if  successful,  subversive  of  the 
great  fundamental  principles  upon  which  all  our  institutions  rest.  If  there  is  any 
one  principle  more  sacred  and  more  vital  to  the  existence  of  a  free  government  than 
all  others,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  form  and  ratify  the  Constitution  under 
which  they  are  to  live.  It  is  the  corner-stone  of  the  temple  of  liberty,  it  is  the 
foundation  upon  which  the  whole  structure  rests,  and  whenever  it  can  be  successfully 
evaded  self-government  has  received  a  vital  stab.  I  deemed  it  my  duty,  as  a  citizen 
and  as  a  representative  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  to  resist,  with  all  my  energies  and 
with  whatever  of  ability  I  could  command,  the  consummation  of  that  effort  to  force  a 
Constitution  upon  an  unwilling  people. 

I  am  aware  that  other  questions  have  been  connected,  or  attempted  to  be  connect- 
ed, with  that  great  struggle,  but  they  were  mere  collateral  questions,  not  affecting 
the  main  point.  My  opposition  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  rested  solely  upon 
the  fact  that  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  that  people,  and  that  it  did  not  embody 
their  will.  I  did  not  object  to  it  upon  the  ground  of  the  slavery  clause  contained  in 
it.  I  should  have  resisted  it  with  the  same  energy  and  determination  even  if  it  had 


41 

been  a  free  State  instead  of  a  slaveholding  State ;  and  as  an  evidence  of  this  fact  I 
wish  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  my  speech  against  that  Lecornpton  act  was  made  on 
the  9th  day  of  December,  nearly  two  weeks  before  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  accept- 
ance or  rejection  of  the  slavery  clause.  I  did  not  then  know,  I  could  not  have 
known,  whether  the  slavery  clause  would  be  accepted  or  rejected ;  the  general  impres- 
sion was  that  it  would  be  rejected,  and  in  my  speech  I  assumed  that  impression  to  be 
true  ;  that  probably  it  would  be  voted  down  ;  and  then  I  said  to  the  U.  S.  Senate,  a? 
I  now  proclaim  to  you,  my  constituents,  that  you  have  no  more  right  to  force  a  free 
State  upon  an  unwilling  people  than  you  have  to  force  a  slave  State  upon  them 
against  their  will.  You  have  no  right  to  force  either  a  good  or  a  bad  thing 
upon  a  people  who  do  not  choose  to  receive  it.  And  then,  again,  the  highest 
privilege  of  our  people  is  to  determine  for  themselves  what  kind  of  institu- 
tions are  good  and  what  kind  of  institutions  are  bad,  and  it  may  be  true  that  the 
jtame  people,  situated  in  a  different  latitude  and  different  climate,  and  with  different 
productions  and  different  interests,  might  decide  the  same  question  one  way  in  the 
North  and  another  way  in  the  South,  in  order  to  adapt  their  institutions  to  the  want; 
and  wishes  of  the  people  to  be  affected  by  them. 

You  all  are  familiar  with  the  Lecompton  struggle,  and  I  will  occupy  no  more  time 
upon  the  subject,  except  to  remark  that  when  we  drove  the  enemies  of  the  principle 
of  popular  sovereignty  from  the  effort  to  force  the  Lecompton  Constitution  upon  the 
people  of  Kansas,  and  when  we  compelled  them  to  abandon  the  attempt  and  to  refer 
that  Constitution  to  that  people  for  acceptance  or  rejection,  we  obtained  a  concession 
of  the  principle  for  which  I  had  contended  throughout  the  struggle.  When  I  saw 
that  the  principle  was  conceded,  and  that  the  Constitution  was  not  to  be  forced  on 
Kansas  against  the  wishes  of  the  people,  I  felt  anxious  to  give  the  proposition  my 
support ;  but,  when  I  examined  it,  I  found  that  the  mode  of  reference  to  the  people 
and  the  form  of  submission,  upon  which  the  vote  was  taken,  was  so  objectionable  as 
to  make  it  unfair  and  unjust. 

Sir,  it  is  an  axiom  with  me  that  in  every  free  government  an  unfair  election  is  no 
election  at  all.  Every  election  should  be  free,  should  be  fair,  with  the  same  privileges 
and  the  same  inducements  for  a  negative  as  for  an  affirmative  vote.  The  objection 
to  what  is  called  the  "  English  "  proposition,  by  which  the  Lecompton  Constitution 
was  referred  back  to  the  people  of  Kansas,  was  this,  that  if  the  people  chose  to  ac- 
cept the  Lecompton  Constitution  they  could  come  in  with  only  35,000  inhabitants, 
while  if  they  determined  to  reject  it  in  order  to  form  another  more  in  accordance 
with  their  wishes  and  sentiments,  they  were  compelled  to  stay  out  until  they  should 
have  93,420  inhabitants.  In  other  words,  it  was  making  a  distinction  and  discrimi- 
nation between  free  States  and  slave  States  under  the  Federal  Constitution.  I  deny 
the  justice,  I  deny  the  right,  of  any  distinction  or  discrimination  between  the  State* 
North  arid  South,  free  or  slave.  Equality  among  the  States  is  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  this  government.  Hence,  while  I  will  never  consent  to  the  passage  of  a 
law  that  a  slave  State  may  come  in  with  35,000,  while  a  free  State  shall  not  come 
in  unless  it  have  93,000,  on  the  other  hand,  I  shall  not  consent  to  admit  a  free  State 
with  a  population  of  35,000,  and  require  93,000  in  a  slaveholding  State. 

My  principle  is  to  recogni/e  each  State  of  the  Union  as  independent,  sovereign 
and  equal  in  its  sovereignty.  I  will  apply  that  principle  not  only  to  the  original 
thirteen  States,  but  to  the  Slates  which  have  since  been  brought  into  the  Union,  and 
also  to  every  State  that,  shall  hereafter  be  received,  "  as  long  as  water  shall  run 
and  grass  grow."  For  these  reasons  I  felt  compelled,  by  a  sense  of  duty,  by  a 
conviction  of  principle,  to  record  my  vote  against  what  is  called  the  English  bill ; 
but  yet  the  bill  became  a  law,  and  under  that  law  an  election  has  been  ordered  to  be 
held  on  the  first  Monday  in  August  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  question  of 
the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  proposition  submitted  by  Congress.  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying  to  you,  as  the  chairman  of  your  committee  has  justly  said 
in  his  address,  that  whatever  the  decision  of  the  people  of  Kansas  may  be  at  thai 
election,  it  must  be  final  and  conclusive  of  the  whole  subject;  for  if  at  that 


42 

election  a  majority  of  the  people  of  Kansas  shall  vote  for  the  acceptance  of  the  Con- 
gressional proposition,  Kansas  from  that  moment  becomes  a  State  of  the  Union,  the 
law  admitting  her  becomes  irrepealable,  and  thus  the  controversy  terminates  forever; 
if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  people  of  Kansas  shall  vote  down  that  proposition, 
as  it  is  now  generally  admitted  they  will,  by  a  large  majority,  then  from  that 
instant  the  Lecompton  Constitution  is  dead,  dead  beyond  the  power  of  resur- 
rection, and  thus  the  controversy  terminates.  And  when  the  monster  shall  die  I 
shall  be  willing,  and  trust  that  all  of  you  will  be  willing,  to  acquiesce  in  the 
death  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  The  controversy  may  now  be  considered  as 
terminated,  for  in  three  weeks  from  now  it  will  be  finally  settled,  and  all  the  ill-feeling, 
all  the  embittered  feeling  which  grew  out  of  it  shall  cease,  unless  an  attempt  should 
b'j  made  in  the  future  to  repeat  the  same  outrage  upon  popular  rights.  I  need  not 
tell  you  that  my  past  course  is  a  sufficient  guarantee  that  if  the  occasion  shall  ever 
arise  again  while  I  occupy  a  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate,  you  will  find  me  car- 
rying out  the  same  principle  that  I  have  this  winter, 'with  all  the  energy  and  all  the 
power  I  may  be  able  to  command.  I  have  the  gratification  of  saying  to  you  that  I 
do  not  believe  that  that  controversy  will  ever  arise  again ;  first,  because  the  fate  of 
Lecompton  is  a  warning  to  the  people  of  every  Territory  and  of  every  State 
to  be  cautious  how  the  example  is  repeated;  and  secondly,  because  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  in  his  annual  message,  has  said  that  he  trusts  the  example  in 
the  Minnesota  case,  wherein  Congress  passed  a  law,  called  an  enabling  act,  requiring 
the  Constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  acceptance  or  rejection,  will  be 
followed  in  all  future  cases.  ["  That  was  right."]  I  agree  with  you  that  it  was 
right.  I  said  so  on  the  day  after  the  message  was  delivered,  in  my  speech  in  the 
Senate  on  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  and  I  have  frequently  in  the  debate  tendered 
to  the  President  and  his  friends,  tendered  to  the  Lecomptonites,  my  voluntary  pledge 
that  if  he  will  stand  by  that  recommendation,  and  they  will  stand  by  it,  that  they 
will  find  me  working  hand  in  hand  with  them  in  the  effort  to  carry  it  out. 
All  we  have  to  do,  therefore,  is  to  adhere  firmly  in  the  future,  as  we  have  done 
in  the  past,  to  the  principle  contained  in  the  recommendation  of  the  President 
in  his  annual  message,  that  the  example  in  the  Minnesota  case  shall  be  car- 
ried out  in  all  future  cases  of  the  admission  of  Territories  into  the  Union  as 
States.  Let  that  be  done  and  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  will  be  main- 
tained in  all  of  its  vigor  and  all  of  its  integrity.  I  rejoice  to  kn-^vv  that  Illinois 
stands  prominently  and  proudly  forward  among  the  States  which  first  took  their  po- 
sition firmly  and  immovably  upon  this  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  applied  to 
the  Territories  as  well  as  to  the  States.  You  all  recollect  when  in  1850  the  peace 
of  the  country  was  disturbed  in  consequence  of  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question, 
and  the  effort  to  force  the  Wilmot  Proviso  upon  all  the  Territories,  that  it  required 
all  the  talent  and  all  the  energy,  all  the  wisdom,  all  the  patriotism,  of  a  Clay  and  a 
Webster,  united  with  other  great  party  leaders,  to  devise  a  system  of  measures  by 
which  feace  and  harmony  could  be  restored  to  our  distracted  country.  Those  com- 
promise measures  eventually  passed  and  were  recorded  on  the  statute  book,  not  only 
as  the  settlement  of  the  then  existing  difficulties,  but  as  furnishing  a  rule  of  action 
which  should  prevent  in  all  future  time  the  recurrence  of  like  evils,  if  they  were 
firmly  and  fairly  carried  out.  Those  compromise  measures  rested,  as  I  said  in.  my 
speech  at  Chicago,  on  my  return  home  that  year,  upon  the  principle  that  every  people 
ought  to  have  the  right  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their 
own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution.  They  were  founded  upon  the  principle 
that,  while  every  State  possessed  that  right  under  the  Constitution,  that  the  same 
right  ought  to  be  extended  to  and  exercised  by  the  people  of  the  Territories. 
When  the  Illinois  Legislature  assembled,  a  few  months  after  the  adoption  of  these 
measures,  the  first  thing  the  members  did  was  to  review  their  action  upon  this  slavery 
agitation,  and  to  correct  the  errors  into  which  their  predecessors  had  fallen.  You 
remember  that  their  first  act  was  to  repeal  the  Wilmot  Proviso  instructions  to  our 
U.  S.  Senators,  which  had  been  previously  passed,  and  in  lieu  of  them  to  record  an- 


43 

other  resolution  upon  the  journal,  with  which  you  must  all  be  familiar — a  resolution 
brought  forward  by  Mr.  Ninian  Edwards,  and  adopted  by  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives by  a  vote  of  61  in  the  affirmative  to  4  in  the  negative.  That  resolution  I  can 
quote  to  you  in  almost  its  precise  language.  It  declared  that  the  great  principle  of 
self-government  was  the  birthright  of  freemen  ;  was  the  gift  of  heaven  ;  was  achieved 
by  the  blood  of  our  revolutionary  fathers,  and  must  be  continued  and  carried  out  in  the 
organization  of  all  the  Territories  and  the  admission  of  all  new  States.  That  became 
the  Illinois  platform  by  the  united  voices  of  the  Democratic  party  and  of  the  Whig  par- 
ty in  1851  ;  all  the  Whigs  and  all  the  Democrats  in  the  Legislature  uniting  in  an  af- 
firmative vote  upon  it,  and  there  being  only  4  votes  in  the  negative,  of  Abolitionists, 
of  course,  that  resolution  stands  upon  the  journal  of  your  Legislature  to  this  day  and 
hour  unrepealed,  as  a  standing, living,  perpetual  instruction  to  the  Senators  from  Illinois 
in  all  time  to  come  to  carry  out  that  principle  of  self-government  and  allow  no  limita- 
tion upon  it  in  the  organization  of  any  Territories  or  the  admission  of  any  new 
States.  In  1854,  when  it  became  my  duty  as  the  chairman  of  the  committee  on  Ter- 
ritories to  bring  forward  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  I  incor- 
porated that  principle  in  it  and  Congress  passed  it,  thus1  carrying  the  principle  into 
practical  effect.  I  will  not  recur  to  the  scenes  which  took  place  all  over  the  country 
in  1854  when  that  Nebraska  bill  passed.  I  could  then  travel  from  Boston  to  Chicago 
by  the  light  of  my  own  effigies,  in  consequence  of  having  stood  up  for  it.  I  leave 
it  to  you  to  say  how  I  met  that  storm,  and  whether  I  quailed  under  it;  whether  I 
did  not  "face  the  music,"  justify  the  principle,  and  pledge  my  life  to  carry  it  out. 

A  friend  here  reminds  me,  too,  that  when  making  speeches  then,  justifying 
the  Nebraska  bill  and  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  that  I  predicted 
that  in  less  than  five  years  yon  would  have  to  get  out  a  search  warrant  to 
find  an  anti-Nebraska  man.  Well,  I  believe  I  did  make  that  prediction.  I 
did  not  claim  the  power  of  a  prophet,  but  it  occurred  to  me  that  among  a 
free  people,  and  an  honest  people,  and  an  intelligent  people,  that  five  years 
was  long  enough  for  them  to  come  to  an  understanding  that  the  great  prin- 
ciple of  self-government  was  right,  not  only  in  the  States,  but  in  the  Territories. 
I  rejoiced  this  year  to  see  my  prediction,  in  that  respect,  carried  out  and  fulfilled 
by  the  unanimous  vote,  in  one  form  or  another,  of  both  Houses  of  Congress.  If 
you  will  remember  that  pending  this  Lecompton  controversy  that  gallant  old 
Roman,  Kentucky's  favorite  son,  the  worthy  successor  of  the  immortal  Clay  —  I 
allude,  as  you  know,  to  the  gallant  John  J.  Crittenden  —  brought  forward  a 
bill,  now  known  as  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill,  in  which  it  was  proposed 
that  the  Lecompton  Constitution  should  be  referred  back  to  the  people  of  Kan- 
sas, to  be  decided  for  or  against  it,  at  a  fair  election,  and  if  a  majority  of  the 
people  were  in  favor  of  it,  that  Kansas  should  come  into  the  Union  as  a  slave- 
holding  State,  but  that  if  a  majority  were  against  it,  that  they  should  make  a  new 
Constitution,  and  come  in  with  slavery  or  without  it,  as  they  thought  proper. 
[ "  That  was  right."]  Yes,  my  dear  sir,  it  was  not  only  right,  but  it  was  carry- 
ing out  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill  in  its  letter  and  in  its  spirit.  Of 
course  I  voted  for  it,  and  so  did  every  Republican  Senator  and  Representative 
in  Congress.  I  have  found  some  Democrats  so  perfectly  straight  that  they  blame 
me  for  voting  for  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill  because  the  Republicans  voted 
the  same  way.  [Great  laughter.  "  What  did  they  say  ?"] 

What  did  they  say  ?  Why,  many  of  them  said  that  Douglas  voted  with  the 
Republicans.  Yes!  not  only  that,  but  with  the  black  Republicans.  Well,  there 
are  different  modes  of  stating  that  proposition.  The  New  York  Tribune  says  that 
Douglas  did  not  vote  with  the  Republicans,  but  that  on  that  question  the  Repub- 
licans went  over  to  Douglas  and  voted  with  him. 

My  friends,  I  have  never  yet  abandoned  a  principle  because  of  the  support 
I  found  men  yielding  to  it,  and  I  shall  never  abandon  my  Democratic  principles 
merely  because  Republicans  come  to  them.  For  what  do  we  travel  over  the  coun- 
try and  make  speeches  in  every  political  canvass,  if  it  is  not  to  enlighten  the  minds 


44 

of  these  Republicans ;  to  remove  the  scales  from  their  eyes,  and  to  impart  to  them 
the  light  of  democratic  vision,  so  that  they  may  be  able  to  carry  out  the  Constitu- 
tion of  our  country  as  our  lathers  made  it.  And  if  by  preaching  our  principled 
to  the  people  we  succeed  in  convincing  the  Republicans  of  the  errors  of  their 
ways,  and  bring  them  over  to  us,  are  we  bound  to  turn  traitors  to  our  princijftes, 
merely  because  they  give  them  their  support  ?  All  I  have  to  say  is  that  I  hope 
the  Republican  party  will  stand  firm,  in  the  future,  by  the  vote  they  gave  on 
the  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill.  I  hope  we  will  find,  in  the  resolutions  of  their 
County  and  Congressional  Conventions,  no  declarations  of  "no  more  slave  States 
to  be  admitted  into  this  Union,"  but  in  lieu  of  that  declaration  that  we  will  find 
the  principle  that  the  people  of  every  State  and  every  Territory  shall  come  into 
the  Union  with  slavery  or  without  it,  just  as  they  please,  without  any  interfer- 
ence on  the  part  of  Congress. 

My  friends,  whilst  I  was  at  Washington,  engaged  in  this  great  battle  for  sound 
constitutional  principles,  I  find  from  the  newspapers  that  the  Republican  party  of 
this  State  assembled  in  this  Capital,  in  State  Convention,  and  not  only  nominated, 
as  it  was  wise  and  propef  for  them  to  do,  a  man  for  my  successor  in  the  Sen- 
ate, but  laid  down  a  platform,  and  their  nominee  made  a  speech,  carefully  writ- 
ten and  prepared,  and  well  delivered,  which  that  Convention  accepted  as  con- 
taining the  Republican  creed.  I  have  no  comment  to  make  on  that  part  of  Mr. 
Lincoln's  speech,  in  which  he  represents  me  as  forming  a  conspiracy  with  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  with  the  late  President  of  the  United  States  and  the  present 
chief  magistrate,  having  for  my  object  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  the  Dretl 
Scott  decision  and  the  extension  of  slavery  —  a  scheme  of  political  tricksters, 
composed  of  Chief  Justice  Taney  and  his  eight  associates,  two  Presidents  of  the 
United  States,  and  one  Senator  of  Illinois.  If  Mr.  Lincoln  deems  me  a  conspi- 
rator of  that  kind,  all  I  have  to  say  is  that  I  do  not  think  so  badly  of  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  Stales,  the  highest  judi- 
cial tribunal  on  earth,  as  to  believe  that  they  were  capable  in  their  action  and  decision 
of  entering  into  political  intrigues  for  partisan  purposes.  I  therefore  shall  only 
notice  those  parts  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  speech,  in  which  he  lays  down  his  platform 
of  principles,  and  tells  you  what  he  intends  to  do  if  he  is  elected  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States. 

[An  old  gentleman  here  rose  on  the  platform  and  said :  "  Be  particular  now, 
Judge,  be  particular."] 

Mr.  Douglas  —  My  venerable  friend  here  says  that  he  will  be  gratified  if  I 
will  be  particular,  and  in  order  that  I  may  be  so,  I  will  re,ad  the  language  of 
Mr.  Lincoln  as  reported  by  himself  and  published  to  the  country.  Mr.  Lincoln 
lays  down  his  main  proposition  in  these  words : 

"  *  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  Union  cannot 
endure  permanently  half  fref  and  half  slave.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  will 
be  dissolved.  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  to  cease  to 
be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other." 

Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  think  this  Union  can  continue  to  exist  composed  of  half 
ulave  and  half  free  States ;  they  must  all  be  free  or  all  slave.  I  do  not  doubt 
that  this  is  Mr.  Lincoln's  conscientious  conviction.  I  do  not  doubt  that  he 
thinks  it  is  the  highest  duty  of  every  patriotic  citizen  to  preserve  thiti  glorious 
Union,  and  to  adopt  these  measures  as  necessary  to  its  preservation.  He  tells 
you  that  the  only  mode  to  preserve  the  Union  is  to  make  all  the  States  free 
or  all  slave.  It  must  be  the  one  or  it  must  be  the  other.  Now  that  being  essen- 
tial, in  his  estimation,  to  the  preservation  of  this  glorious  Union,  how  is  he  going 
to  accomplish  it  ?  He  says  that  he  wants  to  go  to  the  Senate  in  order  to  carry 
out  this  favorite  patriotic  policy  of  his,  of  making  all  the  States  free,  so  that 
the  house  shall  no  longer  be  divided  against  itself.  When  he  gets  to  the  Sen- 
ate, by  what  means  is  he  going  to  accomplish  it  ?  By  an  act  of  Congress  ?  Will 
he  contend  that  Congress  has  any  power  under  the  Constitution  to  abolish  slavery 


45 

in  any  State  of  this  Union,  or  to  interfere  with  it  directly  or  indirectly  ?  Of 
course  he  will  not  contend  that.  Then  what  is  to  be  his  mode  of  carrying  out 
his  principle,  by  which  slavery  shall  be  abolished  in  all  of  the  States?  Mr.  Lin- 
coln certainly  does  riot  speak  at  random.  He  is  a  lawyer,  an  eminent  lawyer, 
arid  his  profession  is  to  know  the  remedy  for  every  wrong.  What  is  his  remedy  for 
this  imaginary  wrong  which  he  supposes  to  exist?  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  provides  that  it  may  be  amended  by  Congress  passing  an  amendment  by  a 
two-thirds  majority  of  each  house,  which  shall  be  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  the  States, 
am1  the  inference  is  that  Mr.  Lincoln  intends  to  carry  this  slavery  agitation  into 
Congress  with  the  view  of  amending  the  Constitution  so  that  slavery  can  be  abol- 
ished -n  all  the  States  of  the  Union.  In  other  words,  he  is  not  going  to  allow  one 
portion  of  the  Union  to  be  slave  and  another  portion  to  be  free ;  he  is  not  going  to 
permit  the  house  to  be  divided  against  itself.  He  is  going  to  remedy  it  by  lawful 
Mid  constitutional  means.  What  are  to  be  these  means  ?  How  can  he  abolish  slavery 
in  those  States  where  it  exists  ?  There  is  but  one  mode  by  which  a  political  organiza- 
tion, composed  of  men  in  the  free  States,  can  abolish  slavery  in  the  slaveholding  States, 
and  that  would  be  to  abolish  the  State  Legislatures,  blot  out  of  exit-fence  the  State 
sovereignties,  invest  Congress  with  full  and  plenary  power  over  all  the  local  and  do- 
mestic and  police  regulations  of  the  different  States  of  this  Union.  Then  there 
would  be  uniformity  in  the  local  concerns  and  domestic  institutions  of  the  different 
States;  then  the  house  would  be  no  longer  divided  against  itself ;  then  the  States 
would  all  be,  free,  or  they  would  all  be  slave ;  then  you  would  have  uniformity  pre- 
vailing throughout  this  whole  land  in  the  local  and  domestic  institutions,  but  it  would 
be  a  uniformity  not  of  liberty,  but  a  uniformity  of  despotism  that  would  triumph.  I 
pubmit  to  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  whether  this  is  not  the  logical  consequence  of 
Mr.  Lincoln's  proposition  ?  I  have  called  on  Mr.  Lincoln  to  explain  what  he  did 
mean,  if  he  did  not  mean  this,  and  he  has  made  a  speech  at  Chicago,  in  which  he  at- 
tempts to  explain.  And  how  does  he  explain  ?  I  will  give  him  the  benefit  of  his  own 
language,  precisely  as  it  was  reported  in  the  Republican  papers  of  that  city,  after 
undergoing  his  revision. 

"  I  have  said  a  hundred  times,  and  have  now  no  inclination  to  take  it  back,  that  I 
believe  there  is  no  right  and  ought  to  be  no  inclination  in  the  people  of  the  free  States 
to  enter  into  the  slave  States  arid  interfere  with  the  question  of  slavery  at  all." 

He  believes  there  is  no  right  on  the  part  of  the  free  people  of  the  free  States  to 
enter  the  slave  States  aud  interfere  with  the  question  of  slavery,  hence  he  does  not 
propose  to  go  into  Kentucky  and  stir  up  a  civil  war  and  a  servile  war  between  the 
blacks  and  the  whites.  All  he  proposes  is  to  invite  the  people  of  Illinois  and  every 
other  free  State  to  band  together  as  one  sectional  party,  governed  and  divided  by  a 
jreog  *aphical  line,  to  make  war  upon  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  slaveholding. 
State  s.  He  is  going  to  carry  it  out  by  means  of  a  political  party,  that  has  its  adhe- 
rcntf  only  in  the  free  States  ;  a  political  party,  that  does  not  pretend  that  it  can  give 
a  solitary  vote  in  the  slave  States  of  the  Union  ;  and  by  this  sectional  vote  he  is 
going  to  elect  a  President  of  the  United  States ;  form  a  Cabinet  and  administer  the 
Government  on  sectional  grounds,  being  the  power  of  the  North  over  that  of  the 
South.  In  other  words,  he  invites  a  war  of  the  North  against  the  South,  a  warfare 
cf  the  free  States  against  the  slaveholding  States.  He  asks  all  men  in  the  free  States 
to  conspire  to  exterminate  slavery  in  the  Southern  States,  so  as  to  make  them  all 
free,  and  then  he  notifies  the  South  that  unless  they  are  going  to  submit  to  our  efforts 
*o  exterminate  their  institutions,  they  must  band  together  and  plant  slavery  in  Illi- 
nois and  every  Northern  State.  He  says  that  the  States  must  all  be  free  or  must  all 
be  slave.  On  this  point  I  take  issue  with  him  directly.  I  assert  that  Illinois  has  a 
right  to  decide  the  slavery  question7  for  herself.  We  have  decided  it,  and  I  think  we 
have  done  it  wisely ;  but  whether  wisely  or  unwisely,  it  is  our  business,  and  the  peo- 
ple of  no  other  State  have  any  right  to  interfere  with  us,  directly  or  indirectly. 
Claiming  as  we  do  this  right  for  ourselves,  we  must  concede  it  to  every  other  State, 
to  be  exercised  by  them  respectively. 


46 

Now,  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  lie  will  not  enter  into  Kentucky  to  abolish  slavery 
there,  but  that  all  he  will  do  is  to  fight  slavery  in  Kentucky  from  Illinois.  He  will 
not  go  over  there  to  set  fire  to  the  match.  I  do  not  think  he  would.  Mr.  Lincoln 
is  a  very  prudent  man.  He  would  not  deem  it  wise  to  go  over  into  Kentucky  to 
stir  up  this  strife,  but  he  would  do  it  from  this  side  of  the  river.  Permit  me  to  in- 
quire whether  the  wrong,  the  outrage  of  interference  by  one  State  with  the  local 
concerns  of  another,  is  worse  when  you  actually  invade  them  than  it  would  be  if  you 
carried  on  the  warfare  from  another  State?  For  the  purpose  of  illustration,  suppose 
the  British  Government  should  plant  a  battery  on  the  Niagara  river  opposite  Buffalo 
and  throw  their  shells  over  into  Buffalo,  where,  they  should  explode  and  blow  up  the 
houses  and  destroy  the  town.  We  call  the  British  Government  to  an  account,  and 
they  say,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  we  did  not  enter  into  the  limits  ol  the 
United  States  to  interfere  with  you  ;  we  planted  the  battery  on  our  own  soil,  and  had  a 
right  to  shoot  from  our  own  soil,  and  if  our  shells  and  balls  fell  in  Buffalo  and  killed  your 
inhabitants,  why,  it  is  your  look-out,  not  ours.  Thus,  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to  plant  his 
Abolition  batteries  all  along  the  banks  of  the  Ohio  river,  and  throw  his  shells  into 
Virginia  and  Kentucky  and  into  Missouri,  and  blow  up  the  institution  of  slavery,  and 
when  we  arraign  him  for  his  unjust  interference  with  the  institutions  of  the  other 
States,  he  says,  "  Why,  I  never  did  enter  into  Kentucky  to  interfere  with  her ;  I  do 
not  propose  to  do  it ;  I  only  propose  to  take  care  of  my  own  head  by  keeping  on  this 
side  of  the  river,  out  of  harm's  way."  But  yet,  he  says  he  is  going  to  persevere  in 
this  system  of  sectional  warfare,  and  I  have  no  doubt  he  is  sincere  in  what  he  says. 
He  says  that  the  existence  of  the  Union  depends  upon  his  success  in  firing  into  these 
slave  States  until  he  exterminates  them.  He  says  that  unless  he  shall  play  his  batter- 
ies successfully,  so  as  to  abolish  slavery  in  every  one  of  the  States,  that  the  Union 
shall  be  dissolved ;  and  he  says  that  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  would  be  A  terrible 
calamity.  Of  course  it  would.  We  are  all  friends  of  the  Union.  We  all  believe — 
I  do — that  our  lives,  our  liberties,  our  hopes  in  the  future  depend  upon  the  preserva- 
tion and  perpetuity  of  this  glorious  Union.  I  believe  that  the  hopes  of  the  friends 
of  liberty  throughout  the  world  depend  upon  the  perpetuity  of  the  American  Union. 
But  while  I  believe  that  my  mode  of  preserving  the  Union  is  a  very  different  one  from 
that  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  I  believe  that  the  Union  can  only  be  preserved  by  maintaining 
inviolate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  our  fathers  have  made  it.  That 
Constitution  guarantees  to  the  people  of  every  State  the  right  to  have  slavery  or  not 
have  it ;  to  have  negroes  or  not  have  them ;  to  have  Maine  liquor  laws  or  not  have 
them ;  to  have  just  such  institutions  as  they  choose,  each  State  being  left  free  to 
decide  for  itself.  The  framers  of  that  Constitution  never  conceived  the  idea  that 
uniformity  in  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  different  States  was  either  desirable  01 
possible.  They  well  understood  that  the  laws  and  institutions  which  would  be  wel'/ 
adapted  to  the  granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire,  would  be  unfit  for  the  rice  plantations 
of  South  Carolina ;  they  well  understood  that  each  one  of  the  thirteen  States  had 
distinct  and  separate  interests,  and  required  distinct  and  separate  local  laws  and  local 
institutions.  And  in  view  of  that  fact  they  provided  that  each  State  should  retain  its 
sovereign  power  within  its  own  limits,  with  the  right  to  make  just  such  laws  and  just 
such  institutions  as  it  saw  proper,  under  the  belief  that  no  two  of  them  would  be  alike. 
If  they  had  supposed  that  uniformity  was  desirable  and  possible,  why  did  they  provide 
for  a  separate  Legislature  for  each  State  ?  AVhy  did  they  not  blot  out  State  sovereignty 
and  State  Legislatures,  and  give  all  the  power  to  Congress,  in  order  that  the  laws  might 
be  uniform  ?  for  the  very  reason  that  uniformity,  in  their  opinion,  was  neither  desira- 
ble or  possible.  We  have  increased  from  thirteen  States  to  thirty-two  States,  and 
just  in  proportion  as  the  number  of  States  increases  and  our  territory  expands,  there 
will  be  a  still  greater  variety  and  dissimilarity  of  climate,  of  production  and  of  in- 
terest, requiring  a  corresponding  dissimilarity  and  variety  in  the  local  laws  and  insti- 
tutions adapted  thereto.  The  laws  that  are  necessary  in  the  mining  regions  of  Cali- 
fornia, would  be  totally  useless  and  vicious  on  the  prairies  of  Illinois;  the  laws  that 
would  suit  the  lumber  regions  of  Maine  or  of  Minnesota,  would  be  totally  useless 


47 

and  valueless  in  the  tobacco  regions  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky;  the  laws  which 
would  suit  the  manufacturing  districts  of  New  England,  would  be  totally  unsuited  to 
the  planting  regions  of  the  Carolinas,  of  Georgia,  and  of  Louisiana.  Each  State  is 
supposed  to  have  interests  separate  and  distinct  from  each  and  eveiy  other,  and  hence 
must  have  laws  different  from  each  and  every  other  State,  in  order  that  its  laws  shall 
be  adapted  to  the  condition  and  necessities  of  the  people.  Hence  I  insist  that 
our  institutions  rest  on  the  theory  that  there  shall  be  dissimilarity  and  variety 
in  the  local  laws  and  institutions  of  the  different  States  instead  of  all  being 
uniform ;  and  you  find,  my  friends,  that  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself  differ  radically 
}»nd  totally  on  the  fundamental  principles  of  this  Government.  He  goes  for  consoli- 
dation, ibr  uniformity  in  our  local  institutions,  for  blotting  out  State  rights  and  State 
sovereignty,  and  consolidating  all  the  power  in  the  Federal  Government,  for  convert- 
ing these  thirty-two  sovereign  States  into  one  Empire,  and  making  uniformity  through- 
out the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land.  On  the  other  hand,  I  go  for  maintaining  the 
authority  of  the  Federal  Government  within  the  limits  marked  out  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  then  for  maintaining  and  preserving  the  sovereignty  of  each  and  all  of  the 
States  of  the  Union,  in  order  that  each  State  may  regulate  and  adopt  its  own  locul 
institutions  in  its  own  way,  without  interference  from  any  power  whatsoever. 
Thus  you  find  there  is  a  distinct  issue  of  principles — principles  irreconcilable — be- 
tween Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself.  He  goes  for  consolidation  and  uniformity  in  our  Gov- 
ernment. I  go  for  maintaining  the  confederation  of  the  sovereign  States  under  the 
Constitution,  as  our  fathers  made  it,  leaving  each  State  at  liberty  to  manage  its  own 
affairs  and  own  internal  institutions. 

Mr.  Lincoln  makes  another  point  upon  me,  and  rests  his  whole  case  upon  these 
two  points.  His  last  point  is,  that  he  will  wage  a  warfare  upon  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  because  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  He  takes  occasion,  in  his 
speech  made  before  the  Republican  Convention,  in  my  absence,  to  arraign  me,  not 
only  for  having  expressed  my  acquiesence  in  that  decision,  but  to  charge  me  with 
being  a  conspirator  with  that  court  in  devising  that  decision  three  years  before  Dred 
Scott  ever  thought  of  commencing  a  suit  for  his  freedom.  The  object  of  his  speech 
was  to  convey  the  idea  to  the  people  that  the  court  could  not  be  trusted,  that  the  late 
President  could  not  be  trusted,  that  the  present  one  could  not  be  trusted,  and  that  Mr. 
Douglas  could  not  be  trusted ;  that  they  were  all  conspirators  in  bringing  about  that 
corrupt  decision,  to  which  Mr.  Lincoln  is  determined  he  will  never  yield  a  willing 
obedience. 

He  makes  two  points  upon  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  The  first  is  that  he  objects  to 
it  because  the  court  decided  that  negroes  descended  of  slave  parents  are  not  citizens 
of  the  United  States ;  and  secondly,  because  they  have  decided  that  the  act  of  Con- 
gress, passed  8th  of  March,  1820,  prohibiting  slavery  in  all  of  the  Territories  north 
of  36°  30',  was  unconstitutional  and  void,  and  hence  did  not  have  effect  in  emanupa- 
ting  a  slave  brought  into  that  Territory.  And  he  will  not  submit  to  that  decision. 
He  says  that  he  will  not  fight  the  Judges  or  the  United  States  Marshals  in  order  to 
liberate  Dred  Scott,  but  that  he  will  not  respect  that  decision,  as  a  rule  of  law  bind- 
ing o>i  this  country,  in  the  future.  Why  not  ?  Because,  he  says,  it  is  unjust.  How 
is  he  going  to  remedy  it  ?  Why,  he  says  he  is  going  to  reverse  it.  How  ?  He  is 
going  to  take  an  appeal.  To  whom  is  he  going  to  appeal?  The  ConstitutioD 
of  the  United  States  provides  that  the  Supreme  Court  is  the  ultimate  tribu- 
nal, the  highest  judicial  tribunal  on  earth,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to  appeal  from 
that.  To  whom  ?  I  know  he  appealed  to  the  Republican  State  Convention  of  Illi- 
nois, and  I  believe  that  Convention  reversed  the  decision,  but  I  am  not 
aware  that  they  have  yet  carried  it  into  effect.  How  are  they  going  to 
make  that  reversal  effectual  ?  Why,  Mr.  Lincoln  tells  us  in  his  late  Chi- 
cago speech.  He  explains  it  as  clear  as  light.  He  says  to  the  people  of  Illinois 
that  if  you  elect  him  to  the  Senate  he  will  introduce  a  bill  to  re-enact  the  law  which 
the  Court  pronounced  unconstitutional.  [Shouts  of  laughter,  and  voices,  "  Spot  the 
law."]  Yes,  he  is  going  to  spot  the  law.  The  court  pronounces  that  law,  prohibit- 


48 

ing  slavery,  unconstitutional  and  void,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to  pass  an  act  rev  erp- 
ing  that  decision  and  making  it  valid.  I  never  heard  before  of  an  appeal  being  taken 
from  the  Supreme  Court  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  reverse  its  decision. 
I  have  heard  of  appeals  being  taken  from  Congress  to  the  Supreme  Court  to  declare 
a  statute  void.  That  has  been  done  from  the  earliest  days  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall, 
down  to  the  present  time. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois  do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  an  act  of  the  Legia- 
lat  are  void,  as  being  repugnant  to  the  Constitution,  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  is  vested  by  the  Constitution  with  that  very  power.  The  Constitution 
i;ay,<3  that  the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  be  vested  in  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  such  inferior  courts  as  Congress  shall,  from  time  to  time,  ordain  and 
establish.  Hence  it  is  the  province  and  duty  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  pronounce 
judgment  on  the  validity  and  constitutionality  of  an  act  of  Congress.  In  this  case 
they  have  done  so,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  will  not  submit  to  it,  and  he  is  going  to  reverse 
it  by  another  act  of  Congress  of  the  same  tenor.  My  opinion  is  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  ought  to  be  on  the  supreme  bench  himself,  when  the  Republicans  gel 
into  power,  if  that  kind  of  law  knowledge  qualifies  a  man  for  the  bench.  But  Mr. 
Lincoln  intimates  that  there  is  another  mode  by  which  he  can  reverse  the  Dred  Scott 
decision.  How  is  that  ?  Why,  he  is  going  to  appeal  to  the  people  to  elect  a  Presi- 
dent who  will  appoint  judges  who  will  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Well,  let  UH 
see  how  that  is  going  to  be  done.  First,  he  has  to  carry  on  his  sectional  organiza- 
tion, a  party  confined  to  the  free  States,  making  war  upon  the  slaveholding  States 
until  he  gets  a  Republican  President  elected.  ["He  never  will,  sir."]  I  do 
not  believe  he  ever  will.  But  suppose  he  should ;  when  that  Republican  President 
shall  have  taken  his  seat  (Mr.  Seward,  for  instance),  will  he  then  proceed  to  ap- 
point judges  ?  No !  he  will  have  to  wait  until  the  present  judges  die  before  he 
can  do  that,  and  perhaps  his  four  years  would  be  out  before  a  majority  of  these 
judges  found  it  agreeable  to  die ;  and  it  is  very  possible,  too,  that  Mr.  Lincoln's  sen- 
atorial term  would  expire  before  these  judges  would  be  accommodating  enough  to  die. 
If  it  should  so  happen  I  do  not  see  a  very  great  prospect  for  Mr.  Lincoln  to  reverse  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  But  suppose  they  should  die,  then  how  are  the  new  judges  to 
be  appointed?  Why,  the  Republican  President  is  to  call  upon  the  candidates  and 
catechise  them,  and  ask  them,  "How  will  you  decide  this  case  if  I  appoint  you 
judge?"  Suppose,  for  instance,  Mr.  Lincoln  to  be  a  candidate  for  a  vacancy  on  the 
supreme  bench  to  fill  Chief  Justice  Taney's  place,  and  when  he  applied  to  Seward, 
the  latter  would  say,  "Mr.  Lincoln,  I  cannot  appoint  you  until  I  know  how  you  will 
decide  the  Dred  Scott  case  ?"  Mr.  Lincoln  tells  him,  and  then  asks  him  how  he 
will  decide  Tom  Jones's  case,  and  Bill  Wilson's  case,  and  thus  catechises  the  judge 
as  to  how  he  will  decide  any  case  which  may  arise  before  him.  Suppose  you  get  a 
Supreme  Court  composed  of  such  judges,  who  have  been  appointed  by  a  partisan 
President  upon  their  giving  pledges  how  they  would  decide  a  case  before  it  arose, 
what  confidence  would  you  have  in  such  a  court  ? 

Would  not  your  court  be  prostituted  beneath  the  contempt  of  all  mankind?  What 
man  would  feel  that  his  liberties  were  safe,  his  right  of  person  or  property  was 
secure,  if  the  supreme  bench,  that  august  tribunal,  the  highest  on  earth,  was  brought 
down  to  that  low,  dirty  pool  wherein  the  judges  are  to  give  pledges  in  advance  how 
they  will  decide  all  the  questions  which  may  be  brought  before  them?  It  is  a  prop- 
osition to  make  that  court  the  corrupt,  unscrupulous  tool  of  a  political  party.  But 
Mr  Lincoln  cannot  conscientiously  submit,  he  thinks,  to  the  decision  of  a  court 
composed  of  a  majority  of  Democrats.  If  he  cannot,  how  can  he  expect  us  to 
have  confidence  in  a  court  composed  of  a  majority  of  Republicans,  selected  for  the 
purpose  of  deciding  against  the  Democracy,  and  in  favor  of  the  Republicans  ?  The 
very  proposition  carries  with  it  the  demoralization  and  degradation  destructive  of 
die  judicial  department  of  the  Federal  Government, 

I  say  to  you,  fellow-citizens,  that  I  have  no  warfare  to  make  upon  the  Supreme 
Court  because  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  I  have  no  complaints  to  make  against 


49 

that  court,  because  of  that  decision.  My  private  opinions  on  some  points  of  the  case 
may  have  been  one  way  arid  on  other  points  of  the  case  another;  in  some  things 
concurring  with  the  court  and  in  others  dissenting,  but  what  have  my  private  opin- 
ions in  a  question  of  law  to  do  with  the  decision  after  it  has  been  pronounced  by  the 
highest  judicial  tribunal  known  to  the  Constitution?  You,  sir  [addressing  the 
chairman],  as  an  eminent  lawyer,  have  a  right  to  entertain  your  opinions  on 
any  question  that  comes  before  the  court  and  to  appear  before  the  tribunal  and  main- 
tain them  boldly  and  with  tenacity  until  the  final  decision  shall  have  been  pronounced, 
,Hiid  then,  sir,  whether  you  are  sustained  or  overruled  your  duty  as  a  lawyer  and  a 
(Citizen  is  to  bow  in  deference  to  that  decision.  I  intend  to  yield  obedience  to  the 
dcvi^uns  of  the  highest  tribunals  in  the  land  in  all  cases  whether  their  opinions  are 
in  conformity  with  my  views  as  a  lawyer  or  not.  When  we  refuse  to  abide  by  judi- 
cial decisions  what  protection  is  there  lefl  for  life  and  property?  To  whom  shall 
you  appeal?  To  mob  law,  to  partisan  caucuses,  to  town  meetings,  to  revolution? 
Where  is  the  remedy  when  you  refuse  obedience  to  the  constituted  authorities  ?  1 
will  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  I  agree  or  disagree  with  all  the  opinions  expressed 
by  Judge  Tariey  or  any  other  judge.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  the  decision 
has  been  made.  It  has  been  made  by  a  tribunal  appointed  by  the  Constitution  to 
make  it;  it  was  a  point  within  their  jurisdiction,  and  I  am  bound  by  it. 

But,  my  friends,  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  this  Dred  Scott  decision  destroys  the  doc- 
trine of  popular  sovereignty,  for  the  reason  that  the  court  has  decided  that  Congress 
had  no  power  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  hence  he  infers  that  it  would 
decide  that  the  Territorial  Legislatures  could  not  prohibit  slavery  there.  I  will  not 
stop  to  inquire  whether  the  court  will  carry  the  decision  that  far  or  not.  It  would 
be  interesting  as  a  matter  of  theory,  but  of  no  importance  in  practice  ;  for  this  reason, 
that  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  want  slavery  they  will  have  it,  and  if  they  do  not 
want  it  they  will  drive  it  out,  and  you  cannot  force  it  on  them.  Slavery  cannot  exist 
a  day  in  the  midst  of  an  unfriendly  people  with  unfriendly  laws.  There  is  truth  and 
wisdom  in  a  remark  made  to  me  by  an  eminent  southern  Senator,  when  speaking  of 
this  technical  right  to  take  slaves  into  the  Territories.  Said  he,  "  I  do  not  care  a  fig 
which  way  the  decision  shall  be,  for  it  is  of  no  particular  consequence ;  slavery  cannot 
exist  a  day  or  an  hour  in  any  Territory  or  State  unless  it  has  affirmative  laws  sustain- 
ing and  supporting  it,  furnishing  police  regulations  and  remedies,  and  an  omission  to 
furnish  them  would  be  as  fatal  as  a  constitutional  prohibition.  Without  affirmative  leg- 
islation in  its  favor  slavery  could  not  exist  any  longer  than  a  new-born  infant  could  sur- 
vive under  the  heat  of  the  sun,  on  a  barren  rock,  without  protection.  It  would  wilt 
and  die  for  the  want  of  support,"  So  it  would  be  in  the  Territories.  See  the  illus- 
tration in  Kansas.  The  Republicans  have  told  you,  during  the  whole  history  of  that 
Territory,  down  to  last  winter,  that  the  pro-slavery  party  in  the  Legislature  had 
passed  a  pro-slavery  code,  establishing  and  sustaining  slavery  in  Kansas,  but  that  this 
pro-slavery  Legislature  did  not  truly  represent  the  people,  but  was  imposed  upon 
them  by  an  invasion  from  Missouri,  and  hence  the  Legislature  were  one  way  and  the 
people  another.  Granting  all  this,  and  what  has  been  the  result?  With  laws  sup- 
porting slavery,  but  the  people  against,  there  is  not  as  many  slaves  in  Kansas  to-day 
a%  there  were  on  the  day  the  Nebraska  bill  passed  and  the  Missouri  Compromise  wa? 
repealed.  Why?  Simply  because  slave  owners  knew  that  if  they  took  their 
slaves  into  Kansa<,  where  a  majority  of  the  people  were  opposed  to  slavery, 
that  it  would  soon  be  abolished,  ancl  they  would  lose  their  right  of  property  in  conse- 
quence of  taking  them  there.  For  that  reason  they  would  not  take  or  keep  them 
there.  If  there  had  been  a  majority  of  the  people  in  favor  of  slavery  and  the  cli- 
mate had  been  favorable,  they  would  have  taken  them  there,  but  the  climate  not  being 
suitable,  the  interest  of  the  people  being  opposed  to  it,  and  a  majority  of  them  against 
it,  the  slave  owner  did  not  find  it  profitable  to  take  his  slaves  there,  and  consequently 
there  are  not  as  many  slaves  there  to-day  as  on  the  day  the  Missouri  Compromise 
was  repealed.  This  shows  clearly  that  if  the  people  do  not  want  slavery  they  will 
keep  it  out,  and  if  they  do  want  it  they  will  protect  it. 


50 

You  have  a  good  illustration  of  this  in  the  territorial  history  of  this  State,  Yo-s 
all  remember  that  bj  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  slavery  was  prohibited  in  Illinois, 
yet  you  all  know,  particularly  you  old  settlers,  who  were  here  in  territorial  times, 
that  the  Territorial  Legislature,  in  defiance  of  that  Ordinance,  passed  a  law  allowing 
you  to  go  into  Kentucky,  buy  slaves  and  bring  them  into  the  Territory,  having 
them  sign  indentures  to  serve  you  and  your  posterity  ninety-nine  years,  and  their 
posterity  thereafter  to  do  the  same.  This  hereditary  slavery  was  introduced  in 
defiance  of  the  act  of  Congress.  That  was  the  exercise  of  popular  sovereignty, 
the  right  of  a  Territory  to  decide  the  question  for  itself  in  defiance  of  the  act 
of  Congress.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  are  hostile  to  sla- 
very they  will  drive  it  out.  Consequently  this  theoretical  question  raised  upon 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  is  worthy  of  no  consideration  whatsoever,  for  it  is  only 
brought  into  these  political  discussions  and  used  as  a  hobby  upon  which  to  ride 
into  office,  or  out  of  which  to  manufacture  political  capital. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln's  main  objection  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision  I  have  reserved 
for  my  conclusion.  His  principal  objection  to  that  decision  is  that  it  was  in- 
tended to  deprive  the  negro  of  the  rights  of  citizenship  in  the  different  States  of 
the  Union.  Well,  suppose  it  was,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  that  was  its  legal 
erfect,  what  is  his  objection  to  it  ?  Why,  he  thinks  that  a  negro  ought  to  be  per- 
mitted to  have  the  rights  of  citizenship.  He  is  in  favor  of  negro  citizenship, 
and  opposed  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  because  it  declares  that  a  negro  is  not 
a  citizen,  and  hence  is  not  entitled  to  vote.  Here  I  have  a  direct  issue  with  Mr. 
Lincoln.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  negro  citizenship.  I  do  not  believe  that  a  negro  is 
a  citizen  or  ought  to  be  a  citizen.  I  believe  that  this  Government  of  ours  was  found- 
ed, and  wisely  founded,  upon  the  white  basis.  It  was  made  by  white  men  for  the 
benefit  of  white  men  and  their  posterity,  to  be  executed  and  managed  by  white 
men.  I  freely  concede  that  humanity  requires  us  to  extend  all  the  protection,  all  the 
privileges,  all  the  immunities,  to  the  Indian  and  the  negro  which  they  are  capable  of 
enjoying  consistent  with  the  safety  of  society.  You  may  then  ask  me  what 
are  those  rights,  what  is  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  rights  which  a 
negro  ought  to  have?  My  answer  is  that  this  is  a  question  for  each  State  and 
each  Territory  to  decide  for  itself.  In  Illinois  we  have  decided  that  a  negro 
is  not  a  slave,  but  we  have  at  the  same  time  determined  that  he  is  not  a  citi- 
zen and  shall  not  enjoy  any  political  rights.  I  concur  in  the  wisdom  of  that 
policy  and  am  content  with  it.  I  assert  that  the  sovereignty  of  Illinois 
had  a  right  to  determine  that  question  as  we  have  decided  it,  and  I  de*ay 
that  any  other  State  has  a  right  to  interfere  with  us  or  call  us  to  account 
for  that  decision.  In  the  State  of  Maine  they  have  decided  by  their  Con- 
stitution that  the  negro  shall  exercise  the  elective  franchise  and  hole?  office  on 
an  equality  with  the  white  man.  Whilst  I  do  not  concur  in  the  good  sense  or 
correct  taste  of  that  decision  on  the  part  of  Maine,  I  have  no  disposition  to  quar- 
rel with  her.  It  is  her  business  and  not  ours.  If  the  people  of  Maine  desire  to  be 
put  on  an  equality  with  the  negro,  I  do  not  know  that  anybody  in  this  State 
will  attempt  to  prevent  it.  If  the  white  people  of  Maine  think  a  negro  their 
equal,  and  that  he  has  a  right  to  come  and  kill  their  vote  by  a  negro  vote, 
they  have  a  right  to  think  so,  I  suppose,  and  I  have  no  disposition  to  inter- 
fere with  them.  Then,  again,  passing  over  to  New  York,  we  find  in  that 
State  they  have  provided  that  a  negro  may  vote  provided  he  holds  $250  worth  of 
property,  but  that  he  shall  not  unless  he  does;  that  is  to  say,  they  will  allow  a 
r.e^ro  to  vote  if  he  is  rich,  but  a  poor  fellow  they  will  not  allow  to  vote.  In  New 
York  they  think  a  rich  negro  is  equal  to  a  white  man.  Well,  that  is  a  matter  of 
taste  with  them.  If  they  think  so  in  that  State,  and  do  not  carry  the 
doctrine  outside  of  it  and  propose  to  interfere  with  us,  I  have  no  quarrel  to  make 
with  them.  It  is  their  business.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  philosophy  and  good  sense 
in  a  saying  of  Fridley  of  Kane.  Fridley  had  a  law  suit  before  a  justice  of  the 
peac?,  and  the  justice  decided  it  against  him.  This  he  did  not  like,  and  standing  up 


51 

and  looking  at  the  justice  for  a  momi  ^t,  "  Well,  Square,"  said  he,  "  if  a  man  choose? 
to  make  a  darnation  fool  of  himself  I  suppose  there  is  no  law  against  it/ 
That  is  all  I  have  to  say  about  these  negro  regulations  and  this  negro  voting 
in  otHr  States  where  they  have  systems  different  from  ours.  If  it  is  their  wish 
to  have  it  so,  be  it  so.  There  is  no  cause  to  complain.  Kentucky  has  decided  that 
it  is  not  consistent  with  her  safety  and  her  prosperity  to  allow  a  negro  to  have  either 
political  rights  or  his  freedom,  and  hence  she  makes  him  a  slave.  That  is  her  busi- 
ness, not  mine.  It  is  her  right  under  the  Constitution  of  the  country.  The  sover- 
eignty of  Kentucky,  and  that  alone,  can  decide  that  question,  and  when  she  decides 
it  there  is  no  power  on  earth  to  which  you  can  appeal  to  reverse  it.  Therefore,  leave 
Kentucky  as  the  Constitution  has  left  her,  a  sovereign,  independent  State,  with  the 
exclusive  right  to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  she  chooses,  and  so  long  as  I  hold  power 
]  « ill  maintain  and  defend  her  rights  against  any  assaults  from  whatever  quarter 
they  may  come. 

I  will  never  stop  to  inquire  whether  I  approve  or  disapprove  of  the  domestic  in- 
stitutions of  a  State.  I  maintain  her  sovereign  rights.  I  defend  her  sovereignty 
from  all  assault,  in  the  hope  that  she  will  join  in  defending  us  when  we  are  assailed 
by  any  outside  power.  How  are  we  to  protect  our  sovereign  rights,  to  keep 
slavery  out,  unless  we  protect  the  sovereign  rights  to  every  other  State  to 
decide  the  question  for  itself.  Let  Kentucky,  or  South  Carolina,  or  any  other 
State,  attempt  to  interfere  in  Illinois,  and  tell  us  that  we  shall  establish 
slavery,  in  order  to  make  it  uniform,  according  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  proposition,  through- 
out the  Union ;  let  them  come  here  and  tell  us  that  we  must  and  shall 
have  slavery,  and  I  will  call  on  you  to  follow  me,  and  shed  the  last  drop  of  our 
heart's  blood  in  repelling  the  invasion  and  chastising  their  insolence.  And  if  we 
would  fight  for  our  reserved  rights  and  sovereign  power  in  our  own  limits,  we  must 
respect  the  sovereignty  of  each  other  State. 

Hence,  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself  come  to  a  direct  issue  on  this  whole 
doctrine  of  slavery.  He  is  going  to  wage  a  war  against  it  every  where,  not  only  in 
Illinois,  but  in  his  native  State  of  Kentucky.  And  why?  Because  he  says  that  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  contains  this  language :  "  We  hold  these  truths  to 
be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Crea- 
tor with  certain  inalienable  rights ;  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness,"  and  he  asks  whether  that  instrument  does  not  declare  that  all  men 
are  created  equal.  Mr.  Lincoln  then  goes  on  to  say  that  that  clause  of  the  De- 
claration of  Independence  includes  negroes.  [  "  I  say  not."]  Well,  if  you  say  not, 
I  do  not  think  you  will  vote  for  Mr.  Lincoln.  Mr.  Lincoln  goes  on  to  argue  that 
the  language  "all  men"  included  the  negroes,  Indians,  and  all  inferior  races. 

In  his  Chicago  speech  he  says,  in  so  many  words,  that  it  includes  the  negroes, 
that  they  were  endowed  by  the  Almighty  with  the  right  of  equality  with  the  white 
man,  and  therefore  that  that  right  is  Divine  —  a  right  under  the  higher  law ;  that  the 
law  of  God  makes  them  equal  to  the  white  man,  and  therefore  that  the  law  of  the 
white  man  cannot  deprive  them  of  that  right.  This  is  Mr.  Lincoln's  argument.  He 
is  conscientious  in  his  belief.  I  do  not  question  his  sincerity,  I  do  not  doubt  that  he, 
in  his  conscience,  believes  that  the  Almighty  made  the  negro  equal  to  the  white 
man.  He  thinks  that  the  negro  is  his  brother.  I  do  not  think  that  the  negro  is 
Hny  kin  of  mine  at  all.  And  here  is  the  difference  between  us.  I  believe  that  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  in  the  words  "all  men  are  created  equal,"  was  inten- 
led  to  allude  only  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to  men  of  European  birth  or 
descent,  being  white  men,  that  they  were  created  equal,  and  hence  that  Great  Britain 
had  no  right  to  deprive  them  of  their  political  and  religious  privileges ;  but  the  sign- 
ers of  that  paper  did  not  intend  to  include  the  Indian  or  the  negro  in  that  declara- 
tion, for  if  they  had  would  they  not  have  been  bound  to  abolish  slavery  in 
every  State  and  Colony  from  that  day.  Remember,  too,  that  at  the  time  the 
Declaration  was  put  forth,  every  one  of  the  thirteen  colonies  were  slaveholding 
colonies ;  every  man  who  signed  that  Declaration  represented  slaveholding  constitu- 


cuts.  Did  those  signers  mean  by  that  act  to  charge  themselves,  and  all  their 
constituents  with  having  violated  the  law  of  God,  in  holding  the  negro  in  an  in 
ferior  condition  to  the  white  man?  And  yet,  if  they  included  negroes  in 
that  term,  they  were  bound,  as  conscientious  men,  that  day  and  that  hourr 
not  only  to  have  abolished  slavery  throughout  the  land,  but  to  have  conferred 
political  rights  and  privileges  on  the  negro,  and  elevated  him  to  an  equality  with  the 
white  man.  [  "  They  did  not  do  it"]  I  know  they  did  not  do  it,  and  the  very  fact 
that  they  did  not  shows  that  they  did  not  understand  the  language  they  used  to  ii> 
elude  any  but  the  white  race.  Did  they  mean  to  say  that  the  Indian,  on  this  con- 
tinent, was  created  equal  to  the  white  man,  and  that  he  was  endowed  by  the  Al- 
mighty with  inalienable  rights  —  rights  so  sacred  that  they  could  not  be  taken  away 
by  any  Constitution  or  law  that  man  could  pass  ?  Why,  their  whole  action  toward 
the  Indian  showed  that  they  never  dreamed  that  they  were  bound  to  put  him  on  ar 
equality.  I  am  not  only  opposed  to  negro  equality,  but  I  am  opposed  to  Indiaii 
equality.  I  am  opposed  to  putting  the  coolies,  HOAV  importing  into  this  country,  on 
an  equality  with  us,  or  putting  the  Chinese  or  any  inferior  race  on  an  equality  with 
us.  I  hold  that  the  white  race,  the  European  race,  I  care  not  whether  Irish,  Ger- 
man, French,  Scotch,  English,  or  to  what  nation  they  belong,  so  they  are  the  white 
race,  to  be  our  equals.  And  I  am  for  placing  them,  as  our  fathers  did,  on  an  equali- 
ty with  us.  Emigrants  from  Europe,  and  their  descendants,  constitute  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  only  included  the  white 
people  of  the  United  States.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  framed  by 
the  white  people,  it  ought  to  be  administered  by  them,  leaving  each  State  to  make 
such  regulations  concerning  the  negro  as  it  chooses,  allowing  him  political  rights  or 
not,  as  it  chooses,  and  allowing  him  civil  rights  or  not,  as  it  may  determine  for 
itself. 

Let  us  only  carry  out  those  principles,  and  we  will,  have  peace  and  harmony  in 
the  different  States.  But  Mr.  Lincoln's  conscientious  scruples  on  this  point  govern 
his  actions,  and  I  honor  him  ibr  following  them,  although  I  abhor  the  doctrine  which 
he  preaches.  His  conscientious  scruples  lead  him  to  believe  that  the  negro  is  enti- 
tled by  Divine  right  to  the  civil  and  political  privileges  of  citizenship  on  an  equality 
witfy  the  white  man. 

For  that  reason  he  says  he  wishes  the  Dred  Scott  decision  reversed.  He  wishes 
to  confer  those  privileges  of  citizenship  on  the  negro.  Let  us  see  how  he  will  do  it. 
He  will  first  be  called  upon  to  strike  out  of  the  Constitution  of  Illinois  that  clause 
which  prohibits  free  negroes  and  slaves  from  Kentucky  or  any  other  State  coming 
into  Illinois.  When  he  blots  out  that  clause,  when  he  lets  down  the  door  or  opens 
the  gate  for  all  the  negro  population  to  flow  in  and  cover  our  prairies,  until  in  mid 
day  they  will  look  dark  and  black  as  night;  when  he  shall  have  done  this,  his  mission 
will  yet  be  unfulfilled.  Then  it  will  be  that  lie  will  apply  his  principles  of  negrfc 
equality,  that  is,  if  he  can  get  the  Dred  Scott  decision  reversed  in  the  meantime.  He 
will  then  change  the  Constitution  again,  and  allow  negroes  to  vote  and  hold  office, 
and  will  make  them  eligible  to  the  Legislature,  so  that  thereafter  they  can  h;»ve 
the  right  men  for  U.  S.  Senators.  He  will  allow  them  to  vote  to  elect  the  Leg- 
islature, the  Judges  and  the  Governor,  and  will  make  them  eligible  to  the 
office  of  Judge  or  Governor,  or  to  the  Legislature.  He  will  put  them  on  an 
equality  with  the  white  man.  What  then  ?  Of  course,  after  making  them  eligi- 
ble to  the  judiciary,  when  he  gets  Cuffee  elevated  to  the  bench,  he  certainly  will  not 
refuse  his  judge  the  privilege  of  marrying  any  woman  he  may  select !  I  submit  to 
you  whether  these  are  not  the  legitimate  consequences  of  his  doctrine  ?  If  it  be 
true,  as  he  says,  that  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  by  Divine  law, 
the  negro  is  created  the  equal  of  the  white  man ;  if  it  be  true  that  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  is  unjust  and  wrong,  because  it  deprives  the  negro  of  citizenship  and 
equality  with  the  white  man,  then  does  it  not  follow  that  if  he  had  the  power  he 
would  make  negroes  citizens,  and  give  them  all  the  rights  and  all  the  privileges  of 
citizenship  on  an  equality  with  white  men  ?  I  think  that  is  the  inevitable  conclusion. 


53 

I  do  not  doubt  Mr.  Lincoln's  conscientious  conviction  on  the  subject,  and  I  do  not 
doubt  that  lie  will  carry  out  that  doctrine  if  he  ever  has  the  power;  but  I  resist  it 
because  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  any  political  amalgamation  or  any  other  amalgama- 
tion on  this  continent.  We  are  witnessing  the  result  of  giving  civil  and  political 
rights  to  inferior  races  in  Mexico,  in  Central  America,  in  South  America,  and  in  the 
West  India  Islands.  Those  young  men  who  went  from  here  to  Mexico,  to  fight  the 
battles  of  their  country  in  the  Mexican  war,  can  tell  you  the  fruits  of  negro  equality 
with  the  white  man.  They  will  tell  you  that  the  result  of  that  equality  is  social 
amalgamation,  demoralization  and  degradation,  below  the  capacity  for  self-government. 

My  friends,  if  we  wish  to  preserve  this  Government  we  must  maintain  it  on  the 
basis  on  which  it  was  established,  to  wit:  the  white  basis.  We  must  preserve  the 
purity  of  the  race  not  only  in  our  politics  but  in  our  domestic  relations.  We  must 
then  preserve  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  and  we  must  maintain  the  Federal  Union 
by  preserving  the  Federal  Constitution  inviolate.  Let  us  do  that,  and  our  Union  will 
not  only  be  perpetual  but  may  extend  until  it  shall  spread  over  the  entire  continent. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  have  already  detained  you  too  long.  I  have  exhausted  my- 
self and  wearied  you,  and  owe  you  an  apology  for  the  desultory  manner  in  which  I 
have  discussed  these  topics.  I  will  have  an  opportunity  of  addressing  you  again  be- 
fore the  November  election  comes  off.  I  come  to  you  to  appeal  to  your  judgment 
as  American  citizens,  to  take  your  verdict  of  approval  or  disapproval  upon  the 
discharge  of  my  public  duty  and  my  principles  as  compared  with  those  of  Mr. 
Lincoln.  If  you  conscientiously  believe  that  his  principles  are  more  in  harmony 
with  the  feelings  of  the  American  people  and  the  interests  and  honor  of  the  Repub- 
lic, elect  him.  If,  on  the  contrary,  you  believe  that  my  principles  are  more  con- 
sistent with  those  great  principles  upon  which  our  fathers  framed  this  Government, 
then  I  shall  ask  you  to  so  express  your  opinion  at  the  polls.  I  am  aware  that  it  is  a 
bitter  and  severe  contest,  but  I  do  not  doubt  what  the  decision  of  the  people  of  Il- 
linois will  be.  I  do  not  anticipate  any  personal  collision  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
myself.  You  all  know  that  I  am  an  amiable,  good-natured  man,  and  I  take  great 
pleasure  in  bearing  testimony  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  kind-hearted,  amiable, 
good-natured  gentleman,  with  whom  no  man  has  a  right  to  pick  a  quarrel,  even  if 
he  wanted  one.  He  is  a  worthy  gentleman.  I  have  known  him  for  twenty-five 
years,  and  there  is  no  better  citizen,  and  no  kinder-hearted  man.  He  is  a  fine  law- 
yer, possesses  high  ability,  and  there  is  no  objection  to  him,  except  the  monstrous 
revolutionary  doctrines  with  which  he  is  identified  and  which  he  conscientiously  en- 
tertains, and  is  determined  to  carry  out  if  he  gets  the  power. 

He  has  one  element  of  strength  upon  which  he  relies  to  accomplish  his  object,  and 
that  is  his  alliance  with  certain  men  in  this  State  claiming  to  be  Democrats,  whose 
avowed  object  is  to  use  their  power  to  prostrate  the  Democratic  nominees.  He  hopes 
he  can  secure  the  few  men  claiming  to  be  friends  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  and 
for  that  reason  you  will  find  he  does  not  say  a  word  against  the  Lecompton  Constitu- 
tion or  its  supporters.  He  is  as  silent  as  the  grave  upon  that  subject.  Behold 
Mr.  Lincoln  courting  Lecompton  votes,  in  order  that  he  may  go  to  the  Senate  ts 
the  representative  of  Republican  principles!  You  know  that  that  alliance  exists. 
I  think  you  will  find  that  it  will  ooze  out  before  the  contest  is  over.  It  must  be  a 
contest  of  principle.  Either  the  radical  abolition  principles  of  Mr.  Lincoln  must  b« 
maintained,  or  the  strong,  constitutional,  national  Democratic  principles  with 
which  I  am  identified  must  be  carried  out.  I  shall  be  satisfied  whatever  way 
you  decide.  I  have  been  sustained  by  the  people  of  Illinois  with  a  steadiness,  a 
firmness  and  an  enthusiasm  which  makes  my  heart  overflow  with  gratitude.  If  I 
was  now  to  be  consigned  to  private  life,  I  would  have  nothing  to  complain  of.  I 
would  even  then  owe  you  a  debt  of  gratitude  which  the  balance  of  my  life  could  not 
repay.  But,  my  friends,  you  have  discharged  every  obligation  you  owe  to  me.  I 
have  been  a  thousand  times  paid  by  the  welcome  you  have  extended  to  me  since  I 
have  entered  the  State  on  my  return  home  this  time.  Your  reception  not  only  dis- 
charges all  obligations,  but  it  furnishes  inducement  to  renewed  efforts  to  serve  you  in 


54 

die  future.  If  you  think  Mr.  Lincoln  will  do  more  to  advance  the  interests  and 
elevate  the  character  of  Illinois  than  myself,  it  is  your  duty  to  elect  him;  if  you 
think  he  would  do  more  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  country  and  perpetuate  the 
Union  than  myself,  then  elect  him.  I  leave  the  question  in  your  hands,  and  again 
tender  you  my  profound  thanks  for  the  cordial  and  heart-felt  welcome  tendered  to 
me  this  evening. 


SPEECH  OF  HON.  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN, 

Delivered  in  Springfield,  Saturday  evening,  July  17,  1858.     (Mr.  Douglas  was  not 

present) 


FELLOW-CITIZENS  :  Another  election,  which  is  deemed  an  important  one,  is  ap- 
proaching, and,  as  I  suppose,  the  Republican  party  will,  without  much  difficulty,  elect 
their  State  ticket.  But  in  regard  to  the  Legislature,  we,  the  Republicans,  labor  un- 
der some  disadvantages.  In  the  first  place,  we  have  a  Legislature  to  elect  upon  an 
apportionment  of  the  representation  made  several  years  ago,  when  the  proportion  of 
the  population  was  far  greater  in  the  South  (as  compared  with  the  North)  than  it 
now  is ;  and  inasmuch  as  our  opponents  hold  almost  entire  sway  in  the  South,  and 
we  a  correspondingly  large  majority  in  the  North,  the  fact  that  we  are  now  to  be  rep- 
resented as  we  were  years  ago,  when  the  population  was  different,  is,  to  us,  a  very 
great  disadvantage.  We  had  in  the  year  1855,  according  to  law,  a  census  or  enu- 
meration of  the  inhabitants,  taken  for  the  purpose  of  a  new  apportionment  of  repre- 
sentation. We  know  what  a  fair  apportionment  of  representation  upon  that  census 
would  give  us.  We  know  that  it  could  not,  if  fairly  made,  fail  to  give  the  Republican 
party  from  six  to  ten  more  members  of  the  Legislature  than  they  can  probably  get 
as  the  law  now  stands.  It  so  happened  at  the  last  session  of  the  Legislature,  that 
our  opponents,  holding  the  control  of  both  branches  of  the  Legislature,  steadily 
refused  to  give  us  such  an  apportionment  as  we  were  rightly  entitled  to  have  upon 
tbs  census  already  taken.  The  Legislature  steadily  refused  to  give  us  such  an  ap- 
portionment as  we  were  rightfully  entitled  to  have  upon  the  census  taken  of  the 
population  of  the  State.  The  Legislature  would  pass'  no  bill  upon  that  subject,  ex- 
cept such  as  was  at  least  as  unfair  to  us  as  the  old  one,  and  in  which,  in  some  instances, 
two  men  in  the  Democratic  regions  were  allowed  to  go  as  far  toward  sending  a  mem- 
ber to  the  Legislature  as  three  were  in  the  Republican  regions.  Comparison  was 
made  at  the  time  as  to  representative  and  senatorial  districts,  which  completely  de- 
monstrated that  such  was  the  fact.  Such  a  bill  was  passed  and  tendered  to  the  Re- 
publican Governor  for  his  signature ;  but  principally  for  the  reasons  I  have  stated, 
he  withheld  his  approval,  and  the  bill  fell  without  becoming  a  law. 

Another  disadvantage  under  which  we  labor  is,  that  there  are  one  or  two  Demo- 
cratic Senators  who  will  be  members  of  the  next  Legislature,  and  will  vote  for  the 
election  of  Senator,  who  are  holding  over  in  districts  in  which  we  could,  on  all  rea- 
sonable calculation,  elect  men  of  our  own,  if  we  only  had  the  chance  of  an  election. 
When  we  consider  that  there  are  but  twenty-five  Senators  in  the  Senate,  taking  two 
from  the  side  where  they  rightfully  belong  and  adding  them  to  the  other,  is  to  us  a 
disadvantage  not  to  be  lightly  regarded.  Still,  so  it  is;  we  have  this  to  contend  with. 
Perhaps  there  is  no  ground  of  complaint  on  our  part.  In  attending  to  the  many 
things  involved  in  the  last  general  election  for  President,  Governor,  Auditor,  Treas- 
urer, Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  Members  of  Congress,  of  the  Legislature, 
County  Officers,  and  so  on,  we  allowed  these  things  to  happen  by  want  of  sufficient 


55 

attention,  and  we  have  no  cause  to  complain  of  our  adversaries,  so  far  as  this  matter 
is  concerned.  But  we  have  some  cause  to  complain  of  the  refusal  to  give  us  a  fair 
apportionment. 

There  is  still  another  disadvantage  under  which  we  labor,  and  to  which  I  will  ask 
your  attention.  It  arises  out  of  the  relative  positions  of  the  two  persons  who  stand 
before  the  State  as  candidates  for  the  Senate.  Senator  Douglas  is  of  woi  Id-wide 
renown.  All  the  anxious  politicians  of  his  party,  or  who  have  been  of  his  party  for 
years  past,  have  been  looking  upon  him  as  certainly,  at  no  distant  day,  to  be  the 
President  of  the  United  States.  They  have  seen  in  his  round,  jolly  fruitful  face, 
post-offices,  land-offices,  marshalships  and  cabinet  appointments,  chargt  ships  and  for- 
eign missions,  bursting  and  sprouting  out  in  wonderful  exuberance,  ready  to  be  laid 
hold  of  by  their  greedy  hands.  And  as  they  have  been  gazing  upon  this  attractive 
picture  so  long,  they  cannot,  in  the  little  distraction  that  has  taken  place  in  the  party, 
bring  themselves  to  give  up  the  charming  hope ;  but  with  greedier  anxiety  they  rush 
About  him,  sustain  him,  and  give  him  marches,  triumphal  entries,  and  receptions  be- 
yond what  even  in  the  days  of  his  highest  prosperity  they  could  have  brought  about 
IL  .us  favor.  On  the  contrary,  nobody  has  ever  expected  me  to  be  President.  In 
my  poor,  lean,  lank  face,  nobody  has  ever  seen  that  any  cabbages  were  sprouting  out 
These  are  disadvantages  all,  taken  together,  that  the  Republicans  labor  under.  We 
have  to  fight  this  battle  upon  principle,  and  upon  principle  alone.  I  am,  in  a  certain 
sense,  made  the  standard-bearer  in  behalf  of  the  Republicans.  I  was  made  so  merely 
because  there  had  to  be  some  one  so  placed — I  being  in  nowise  preferable  to  any 
other  one  of  the  twenty-five — perhaps  a  hundred  we  have  in  the  Republican  ranks. 
Then  I  say  I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  and  borne  in  mind,  that  we  have  to 
fight  this  battle  without  many — perhaps  without  any — of  the  external  aids  which  are 
brought  to  bear  against  us.  So  I  hope  those  with  whom  I  am  surrounded  have  prin- 
ciple enough  to  nerve  themselves  for  the  task  and  leave  nothing  undone,  that  can  be 
fairly  done,  to  bring  about  the  right  result 

After  Senator  Douglas  left  Washington,  as  his  movements  were  made  known  by 
the  public  prints,  he  tarried  a  considerable  time  in  the  city  of  New  York  ;  and  it  was 
heralded  that,  like  another  Napoleon,  he  was  lying  by  and  framing  the  plan  of  his 
campaign.  It  was  telegraphed  to  Washington  City,  and  published  in  the  Union,  that 
he  was  framing  his  plan  for  the  purpose  of  going  to  Illinois  to  pounce  upon  and  an- 
nihilate the  treasonable  and  disunion  speech  which  Lincoln  had  made  here  on  the 
16th  of  June.  Now,  I  do  suppose  that  the  Judge  really  spent  some  time  in  New 
York  maturing  the  plan  of  the  campaign,  as  his  friends  heralded  for  him.  I  have 
been  able,  by  noting  his  movements  since  his  arrival  in  Illinois,  to  discover  evidences 
confirmatory  of  that  allegation.  I  think  I  have  been  able  to  see  what  are  the  mate- 
lial  points  of  that  plan.  I  will,  for  a  little  while,  ask  your  attention  to  some  of  them. 
What  I  shall  point  out,  though  not  showing  the  whole  plan,  are,  nevertheless,  the 
main  points,  as  I  suppose. 

They  are  not  very  numerous.  The  first  is  Popular  Sovereignty.  The  second  and 
third  are  attacks  upon  my  speech  made  on  the  16th  of  June.  Out  of  these  three 
points — drawing  within  the  range  of  popular  sovereignty  the  question  of  the  Le- 
eompton  Constitution — he  makes  his  principal  assault.  Upon  these  his  successive 
speeches  are  substantially  one  and  the  same.  On  this  matter  of  popular  sovereignty 
I  wish  to  be  a  little  careful.  Auxiliary  to  these  main  points,  to  be  sure,  are  their 
thunderirigs  of  cannon,  their  marching  and  music,  their  fizzle-gigs  and  fire-works  ;  but 
I  will  not  waste  time  with  them.  They  are  but  the  little  trappings  of  the  campaign. 

Coining  to  the  substance — the  first  point — "popular  sovereignty."  It  is  to  be 
labeled  upon  the  cars  in  which  he  travels ;  put  upon  the  hacks  he  rides  in ;  to  be 
flaunted  upon  the  arches  he  passes  under,  and  the  banners  which  wave  over  him.  It 
is  to  be  dished  up  in  as  many  varieties  as  a  French  cook  can  produce  soups  from  po- 
tatoes. Now,  as  this  is  so  great  a  staple  of  the  plan  of  the  campaign,  it  is  worth 
while  to  examine  it  can.'fully;  and  if  we  examine  only  a  very  little,  and  do  not  allow 
ourselves  to  be  misled,  we  shall  be  able  to  see  that  the  whole  thing  is  the  most  arrant 


Quixotism  that  was  ever  enacted  before  a  community.  What  is  the  matter  of  pop- 
ular sovereignty  ?  The  first  thing,  in  order  to  understand  it,  is  to  get  a  good  defini- 
tion of  what  it  is,  and  after  that  to  see  how  it  is  applied. 

I  suppose  almost  every  one  knows  that,  in  this  controversy,  whatever  has  been 
said  has  had  reference  to  the  question  of  negro  slavery.  "We  have  not  been  in  a 
controversy  about  the  right  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves  in  the  ordinary  mat- 
»ers  of  domestic  concern  in  the  States  and  Territories.  Mr.  Buchanan,  in  one  of  his 
Into  messages  (I  think  when  he  sent  up  the  Lecompton  Constitution),  urged  that  the 
main  points  to  which  the  public  attention  had  been  directed,  was  not  in  regard  to  the 
great  variety  of  small  domestic  matters,  but  was  directed  to  the  question  of  negro 
slavery ;  and  he  asserts,  that  if  the  people  had  had  a  fair  chance  to  vote  on  that 
question,  there  was  no  reasonable  ground  of  objection  in  regard  to  minor  questions. 
Now,  while  I  think  that  the  people  had  not  had  given,  or  offered  them,  a  fair  chance 
upon  that  slavery  question ;  still,  if  there  had  been  a  fair  submission  to  a  vote  upon 
that  main  question,  the  President's  proposition  would  have  been  true  to  the  utter- 
most. Hence,  when  hereafter  I  speak  of  popular  sovereignty,  I  wish  to  be  under- 
stood as  applying  what  I  say  to  the  question  of  slavery  only,  not  to  other  minor 
domestic  matters  of  a  Territory  or  a  State. 

Does  Judge  Douglas,  when  he  says  that  several  of  the  past  years  of  his  life 
have  been  devoted  to  the  question  of  "popular  sovereignty,"  and  that  all  the 
remainder  of  his  life  shall  be  devoted  to  it,  does  he  mean  to  say  that  he  has  been 
devoting  his  life  to  securing  to  the  people  of  the  Territories  the  right  to  exclude 
slavery  from  the  Territories?  If  he  means  so  to  say,  he  means  to  deceive;  because 
he  and  every  one  knows  that  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  he 
approves  and  makes  especial  ground  of  attack  upon  me  for  disapproving,  forbids 
the  people  of  a  Territory  to  exclude  slavery.  This  covers  the  whole  ground,  from 
the  settlement  of  a  Territory  till  it  reaches  the  degree  of  maturity  entitling  it  to 
form  a  State  Constitution.  So  far  as  all  that  ground  is  concerned,  the  Judge  is 
not  sustaining  popular  sovereignty,  but  absolutely  opposing  it.  He  sustains  the 
decision  which  declares  that  the  popular  will  of  the  Territories  has  no  constitutional 
power  to  exclude  slavery  during  their  territorial  existence.  This  being  so,  the 
period  of  time  from  the  first  settlement  of  a  Territory  till  it  reaches  the  point  of 
forming  a  State  Constitution,  is  not  the  thing  that  the  Judge  has  fought  for  or  is 
fighting  for,  but  on  the  contrary,  he  has  fought  for,  and  is  fighting  for,  the  thing 
that  annihilates  and  crushes  out  that  same  popular  sovereignty. 

Well,  so  much  being  disposed  of,  what  is  left  ?  Why,  he  is  contending  for  the 
right  of  the  people,  when  they  come  to  make  a  State  Constitution,  to  make  it  for 
themselves,  and  precisely  as  best  suits  themselves.  I  say  again,  that  is  Quixotic. 
I  defy  contradiction  when  I  declare  that  the  Judge  can  find  no  one  to  oppose  him 
on  that  proposition.  I  repeat,  there  is  nobody  opposing  that  proposition  on  prin- 
ciple. Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  I  know  that,  with  reference  to  the  Le- 
compton Constitution,  I  may  be  misunderstood ;  but  when  you  understand  me 
correctly,  my  proposition  will  be  true  and  accurate.  Nobody  is  opposing,  or  has 
opposed,  the  right  of  the  people,  when  they  form  a  Constitution,  to  form  it  for 
themselves.  Mr.  Buchanan  and  his  friends  have  not  done  it ;  they,  too,  as  well 
as  the  Republicans  and  the  Anti-Lecompton  Democrats,  have  not  done  it ;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  they  together  have  insisted  on  the  right  of  the  people  to  form  a 
Constitution  for  themselves.  The  difference  between  the  Buchanan  men  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  Douglas  men  and  the  Republicans  on  the  other,  has  not  been  on 
a  question  of  principle,  but  on  a  question  of  fact. 

The  dispute  was  upon  the  question  of  fact,  whether  the  Lecompton  Constitution 
had  been  fairly  formed  by  the  people  or  not.  Mr.  Buchanan  and  his  friends  have 
not  contended  for  the  contrary  principle  any  more  than  the  Douglas  men  or  the 
Republicans.  They  have  insisted  that  whatever  of  small  irregularities  existed  in 
getting  up  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  were  such  as  happen  in  the  settlement  of 
all  new  Territories.  The  question  was,  was  it  a  fair  emanation  of  the  people  ?  It 


was  a  question  of  fact  and  not  of  principle.  As  to  the  principle,  all  were  agreed 
Judge  Douglas  voted  with  the  Republicans  upon  that  matter  of  fact, 

He  and  they,  by  their  voices  and  votes,  denied  that  it  was  a  fair  emanation  of 
the  people.  The  Administration  affirmed  that  it  was.  With  respect  to  the  evi- 
dence bearing  upon  that  question  of  fact,  I  readily  agree  that  Judge  Douglas  and 
the  Republicans  had  the  right  on  their  side,  and  that  the  Administration  was 
wrong.  But  I  state  again  that,  as  a  matter  of  principle,  there  is  no  dispute  upon  the 
right  of  a  people  in  a  Territory,  merging  into  a  State  to  form  a  Constitution  for 
themselves  without  outside  interference  from  any  quarter.  This  being  so,  what  is 
Judge  Douglas  going  to  spend  his  life  for  ?  Is  he  going  to  spend  his  life  in  main- 
taining a  principle  that  nobody  on  earth  opposes  ?  Does  he  expect  to  stand  up  in 
majestic  dignity,  and  go  through  his  apotheosis  and  become  a  god,  in  the  maintain- 
ing of  a  principle  which  neither  man  nor  mouse  in  all  God's  creation  is  opposing? 
^<TOW  something  in  regard  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  more  specially ;  for  I 
pass  from  this  other  question  of  popular  sovereignty  as  the  most  arrant  humbug 
that  has  ever  been  attempted  on  an  intelligent  community. 

As  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  I  have  already  said  that  on  the  question  of  fact 
as  to  whether  it  was  a  fair  emanation  of  the  people  or  not,  Judge  Douglas  with 
the  Republicans  and  some  Americans  had  greatly  the  argument  against  the  Ad- 
ministration ;  and  Avhile  I  repeat  this,  I  wish  to  know  what  there  is  in  the  opposi- 
tion of  Judge  Douglas  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  that  entitles  him  to  be  con- 
sidered the  only  opponent  to  it — as  being  par  excellence  the  very  quintessence  of 
that  opposition.  I  agree  to  the  rightfulness  of  his  opposition.  He  in  the  Senate 
and  his  class  of  men  there  formed  the  number  three  and  no  more.  In  the  House 
of  Representatives  his  class  of  men — the  Anti-Lecompton  Democrats — formed  a 
number  of  about  twenty.  It  took  one  hundred  and  twenty  to  defeat  the  measure, 
against  one  hundred  and  twelve.  Of  the  votes  of  that  one  hundred  and  twenty, 
Judge  Douglas's  friends  furnished  twenty,  to  add  to  which  there  were  six  Ameri- 
cans and  ninety-four  Republicans.  I  do  not  say  that  I  am  precisely  accurate  in 
their  numbers,  but  I  am  sufficiently  so  for  any  use  I  am  making  of  it. 

Why  is  it  that  twenty  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  credit  of  doing  that  work,  and 
the  hundred  none  of  it  ?  Why,  if,  as  Judge  Douglas  says,  the  honor  is  to  be 
divided  and  due  credit  is  to  be  given  to  other  parties,  why  is  just  so  much  given  as 
is  consonant  with  the  wishes,  the  interests  and  advancement  of  the  twenty  ?  My 
understanding  is,  when  a  common  job  is  done,  or  a  common  enterprise  prosecuted, 
if  I  put  in  five  dollars  to  your  one,  I  have  a  right  to  take  out  five  dollars  to  your 
one.  But  he  does  not  go  understand  it.  He  declares  the  dividend  of  credit  for 
defeating  Lecompton  upon  a  basis  which  seems  unprecedented  and  incompre- 
hensible. 

Let  us  see.  Lecompton  in  the  raw  was  defeated.  It  afterward  took  a  sort  of 
cooked  up  shape,  and  was  passed  in  the  English  bill.  It  is  said  by  the  Judge  ;hat 
the  defeat  was  a  good  and  proper  thing.  If  it  was  a  good  thing,  why  is  he  en- 
titled to  more  credit  than  others,  for  the  performance  of  that  good  act,  unless  there 
was  something  in  the  antecedents  of  the  Republicans  that  might  induce  every  on«> 
to  expect  them  to  join  in  that  good  work,  and  at  the  same  time,  something  leading 
them  to  doubt  that  he  would  ?  Does  he  place  his  superior  claim  to  credit,  on  the 
ground  that  he  performed  a  good  act  which  was  never  expected  of  him  ?  He  says 
I  have  a  proneness  for  quoting  scripture.  If  I  should  do  so  now,  it  occurs  that 
perhaps  he  places  himself  somewhat  upon  the  ground  of  the  parable  of  the  lost 
sheep  which  went  astray  upon  the  mountains,  and  when  the  owner  of  the  hundred 
sheep  found  the  one  that  was  lost,  and  threw  it  upon  his  shoulders,  and  came  homo 
rejoicing,  it  was  said  that  there  was  more  rejoicing  over  the  one  sheep  that  was 
lost  and  had  been  found,  than  over  the  ninety  and  nine  iri  the  fold.  The  applica- 
tion is  made  by  the  Saviour  in  this  parable,  thus :  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  there 
is  more  rejoicing  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth,  than  over  ninety  and 
nine  just  persons  that  need  no  repentance." 


58 

And  now,  if  the  Judge  claims  the  benefit  of  this  parable,  let  him  repent.  Lei 
him  not  come  up  here  and  say :  "  I  am  the  only  just  person ;  and  you  are  the 
ninety-nine  sinners  !"  Repentance  before  forgiveness  is  a  provision  of  the  Christian 
system,  and  on  that  condition  alone  will  the  Republicans  grant  his  forgiveness. 

How  will  he  prove  that  we  have  ever  occupied  a  different  position  in  regard  to 
the  Lecompton  Constitution  or  any  principle  in  it  ?  He  says  he  did  not  make  his 
opposition  on  the  ground  as  to  whether  it  was  a  free  or  slave  Constitution,  and  he 
would  have  you  understand  that  the  Republicans  made  their  opposition  because  it 
ultimately  became  a  slave  Constitution.  To  make  proof  in  favor  of  himself  on 
this  point,  he  reminds  us  that  he  opposed  Lecompton  before  the  vote  was  taken 
declaring  whether  the  State  was  to  be  free  or  slave.  But  he  forgets  to  say 
that  our  Republican  Senator,  Trumbull,  made  a  speech  against  Lecompton  even 
before  he  did. 

Why  did  he  oppose  it  ?  Partly,  as  he  declares,  because  the  members  of  the 
Convention  who  framed  it  were  not  fairly  elected  by  the  people  ;  that  the  people 
were  not  allowed  to  vote  unless  they  had  been  registered ;  and  that  the  people  of 
whole  counties,  in  some  instances,  were  not  registered.  ,  For  these  reasons  he  de- 
clares the  Constitution  was  not  an  emanation,  in  any  true  sense,  from  the  people. 
He  also  has  an  additional  objection  as  to  the  mode  of  submitting  the  Constitution 
back  to  the  people.  But  bearing  on  the  question  of  whether  the  delegates  were 
fairly  elected,  a  speech  of  his,  made  something  more  than  twelve  months  ago,  from  this 
stand,  becomes  important.  It  was  made  a  little  while  before  the  election  of  the  dele- 
gates who  made  Lecompton.  In  that  speech  he  declared  there  was  every  reason 
to  hope  and  believe  the  election  would  be  fair ;  and  if  any  one  failed  to  vote,  it 
would  be  his  own  culpable  fault. 

I,  a  few  days  after,  made  a  sort  of  answer  to  that  speech.  In  that  answer,  I 
made,  substantially,  the  very  argument  with  which  he  combatted  his  Lecompton 
adversaries  in  the  Senate  last  winter.  I  pointed  to  the  facts  that  the  people  could 
not  vote  without  being  registered,  and  that  the  time  for  registering  had  gone  by. 
I  commented  on  it  as  wonderful  that  Judge  Douglas  could  be  ignorant  of  these 
facts,  which  every  one  else  in  the  nation  so  well  knew. 

I  now  pass  from  popular  sovereignty  and  Lecompton.  I  may  have  occasion  to 
refer  to  one  or  both. 

When  he  was  preparing  his  plan  of  campaign,  Napoleon-like,  in  New  York,  as 
appears  by  two  speeches  I  have  heard  him  deliver  since  his  arrival  in  Illinois,  he 
gave  special  attention  to  a  speech  of  mine,  delivered  here  on  the  16th  of  June  last. 
He  says  that  he  carefully  read  that  speech.  He  told  us  that  at  Chicago  a  week  ago 
last  night,  and  he  repeated  it  at  Bloomington  last  night.  Doubtless,  he  repeated  it 
again  to-day,  though  I  did  not  hear  him.  In  the  the  two  first  places — Chicago  and 
Bloomington — I  heard  him  ;  to-day  I  did  not.  He  said  he  had  carefully  examined 
that  speech  ;  when,  he  did  not  say ;  but  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  it  was  when  ho 
was  in  New  York  preparing  his  plan  of  campaign.  I  am  glad  he  did  read  it  care- 
fully. He  says  it  was  evidently  prepared  with  great  care.  I  freely  admit  it  was 
prepared  with  care.  I  claim  not  to  be  more  free  from  errors  than  others — perhaps 
scarcely  so  much ;  but  I  was  very  careful  not  to  put  anything  in  that  speech  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  or  make  any  inferences  which  did  not  appear  to  me  to  be  true,  and 
fully  warrantable.  If  I  had  made  any  mistake  I  was  willing  to  be  corrected ;  if  I 
had  drawn  any  inference  in  regard  to  Judge  Douglas,  or  any  one  else,  which  was  not 
warranted,  I  was  fully  prepared  to  modify  it  as  soon  as  discovered.  I  planted  my- 
self upon  the  truth  and  the  truth  only,  so  far  as  I  knew  it,  or  could  be  brought  to 
know  it. 

Having  made  that  speech  with  the  most  kindly  feelings  toward  Judge  Douglas,  as 
manifested  therein,  I  was  gratified  when  I  found  that  he  had  carefully  examined  it,  and 
had  detected  no  error  of  fact,  nor  any  inference  against  him,  nor  any  misrepresenta- 
tions, of  which  he  thought  fit  to  complain.  In  neither  of  the  two  speeches  I  have 
mentioned,  did  he  make  any  such  complaint.  I  will  thank  any  one  who  will  inform 


59 

me  that  he,  in  his  speech  to-day,  pointed  out  anything  I  had  stated,  respecting  him, 
its  being  erroneous.  I  presume  there  is  no  such  thing.  I  have  reason  to  be  gratified 
that  the  can;  and  caution  used  in  that  speech,  left  it  so  that  lie,  most  of  all  others  in- 
terested iu  discovering  error,  has  not  been  able  to  point  out  one  thing  against  him 
which  he  could  say  was  wrong.  He  seizes  upon  the  doctrines  he  supposes  to  be  in- 
cluded in  that  speech,  and  declares  that  upon  them  will  turn  the  issues  of  this  cam- 
paign. He  then  quotes,  or  attempts  to  quote,  from  my  speech.  I  will,  not  say  that  he 
willfully  misquotes,  but  he  does  fail  to  quote  accurately.  His  attempt  at  quoting  IF 
from  a  passage  which  I  believe  I  can  quote  accurately  from  memory.  1  shall  make 
the  quotation  now,  with  some  comments  upon  it,  as  I  have  already  said,  in  order  \hat 
the  Judge  shall  be  left  entirely  without  excuse  for  misrepresenting  me.  I  do  so  now, 
as  I  hope,  for  the  last  time.  I  do  this  in  great  caution,  in  order  that  if  he  repeats  his 
misrepresentation,  it  shall  be  plain  to  all  that  he  does  so  willfully.  If,  after  all,  he 
still  persists,  I  shall  be  compelled  to  reconstruct  the  course  I  have  marked  out  for 
myself,  and  draw  upon  such  humble  resources  as  I  have,  for  a  new  course,  better 
su.Hed  to  the  real  exigencies  of  the  ease.  I  set  out,  in  this  campaign,  with  the  inten- 
tion of  conducting  it  strictly  as  a  gentleman,  in  substance  at  least,  if  not  in  the  outside 
poli>h.  The  latter  I  shall  never  be,  but  that  which  constitutes  the  inside  of  a  gentle- 
man I  hope  I  understand,  and  am  not  less  inclined  to  practice  than  others.  It  was 
my  purpose  and  expectation  that  this  canvass  would  be  conducted  upon  principle,  and 
with  fairness  on  both  sides,  and  it  shall  not  be  my  fault  if  this  purpose  and  expecta- 
tion shall  be  given  up. 

He  charges,  in  substance,  that  I  invite  a  war  of  sections ;  that  I  propose  all  the 
local  institutions  of  the  different  States  shall  become  consolidated  and  uniform.  What 
is  there  in  the  language  of  that  speech  which  expresses  such  purpose,  or  bears  such 
const  ruction?  I  have  again  and  again  said  that  I  would  not  enter  into  any  of  the 
States  to  disturb  the  institution  of  slavery.  Judge  Douglas  said,  at  Bloomington, 
that  I  used  language  most  able  and  ingenious  for  concealing  what  I  really  meant; 
and  that  while  I  had  protested  against  entering  into  the  slave  States,  I  nevertheless 
did  mean  to  go  on  the  banks  of  the  Ohio  and  throw  missiles  into  Kentucky,  to  disturb 
them  in  their  domestic  institutions. 

I  said,  in  that  speech,  and  I  meant  no  more,  that  the  institution  of  slavery  ought 
to  be  placed  in  the  very  attitude  where  the  framers  of  this  Government  placed  it  and 
left  it.  I  do  not  understand  that  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  left  the  people  of 
the  free  Stales  in  the  attitude  of  firing  bombs  or  shells  into  the  slave  States.  I  was 
not  using  that  passage  for  the  purj)ose  for  which  he  infers  I  did  use  it.  I  said  :  "We 
arc  now  far  advanced  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  created  for  the  avowed 
object  and  with  the  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation.  Under 
the  operation  of  that  policy  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly 
augmented.  In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  till  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and 
passed.  *  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  that  this  Govern- 
ment cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  It  will  become  all  one 
thing  or  all  the  other.  Kither  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread 
of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become 
alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South." 

Now  you  all  see,  from  that  quotation,  I  did  not  express  my  wish  on  anything.  In 
that  passage  I  indicated  no  wish  or  purpose;  of  my  own;  I  simply  expressed  my  expecta- 
£/<  n.  Cannot  the  Judge  perceive  a  distinction  between  a  purpose  and  an  expectation? 
I  have  often  expressed  an  expectation  to  die,  but  I  have  never  expressed  a  ivish  to 
die.  I  said  at  Chicago,  and  now  repeat,  that  I  am  quite  aware  this  Government  has 
endured,  half  slave  and  half  free,  for  eighty-two  years.  I  understand  that  little  bit 
of  history.  I  expressed  the  opinion  I  did,  because  I  perceived — or  thought  I  per 
ceived — a  new  set  of  causes  introduced.  I  did  say  at  Chicago,  in  rny  speech  there, 
that  I  do  wish  to  see  the  spread  of  slavery  arrested,  and  to  see  it  placed  where  the 
public  min  1  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  i:i  the  course  of  ultirrufe  <  Ktinction.  I 


60 

said  that  because  I  supposed,  when  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  that  belief,  \ve  shall 
have  peace  on  the  slavery  question.  I  have  believed — and  now  believe — the  public 
mind  did  rest  on  that  belief  up  to  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill. 

Although  I  have  ever  been  opposed  to  slavery,  so  far  I  rested  in  the  hope  and  be- 
lief that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  For  that  reason,  it  had  been  a 
minor  question  with  me.  I  might  have  been  mistaken ;  but  I  had  believed,  and  now 
believe,  that  the  whole  public  mind,  that  is,  the  mind  of  the  great  majority,  had  rested 
in  that  belief  up  to  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  But  upon  that  event, 
I  became  convinced  that  either  I  had  been  resting  in  a  delusion,  or  the  institution 
was  being  placed  on  a  new  basis — a  basis  for  making  it  perpetual,  national  and  uni- 
versal. Subsequent  events  have  greatly  confirmed  me  in  that  belief.  I  believe  that 
bill  to  be  the  beginning  of  a  conspiracy  for  that  purpose.  So  believing,  I  have  since 
then  considered  that  question  a  paramount  one.  So  believing,  I  thought  the  public 
mind  will  never  rest  till  the  power  of  Congress  to  restrict  the  spread  of  it  shall  again 
be  acknowledged  and  exercised  on  the  one  hand,  or  on  the  other,  all  resistance 
be  entirely  crushed  out.  I  have  expressed  that  opinion,  and  I  entertain  it  to-night, 
It  is  denied  that  there  is  any  tendency  to  the  nationalization  of  slavery  in  these  States. 

Mr.  Brooks,  of  South  Carolina,  in  one  of  his  speeches,  when  they  were  presenting 
him  canes,  silver  plate,  gold  pitchers  and  the  like,  for  assaulting  Senator  Sumner, 
distinctly  affirmed  his  opinion  that  when  this  Constitution  was  formed,  it  was  the  be- 
lief of  no  man  that  slavery  would  last  to  the  present  day. 

He  said,  what  I  think,  that  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  placed  the  institution 
of  slavery  where  the  public  mind  rested  in  the  hope  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ulti- 
mate extinction.  But  he  went  on  to  say  that  the  men  of  the  present  age,  by  their 
experience,  have  become  wiser  than  the  framers  of  the  Constitution ;  arid  the  inven- 
tion of  the  cotton  gin  had  made  the  perpetuity  of  slavery  a  necessity  in  this  country. 

As  another  piece  of  evidence  tending  to  this  same  point :  Quite  recently  in  Vir- 
ginia, a  man — the  owner  of  slaves — made  a  will  providing  that  after  his  death  certain  of 
his  slaves  should  have  their  freedom  if  they  should  so  choose,  and  go  to  Liberia,  rather 
than  remain  in  slavery.  They  chose  to  be  liberated.  But  the  persons  to  whom  they 
would  descend  as  property,  claimed  them  as  slaves.  A  suit  was  instituted,  which 
finally  came  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Virginia,  and  was  therein  decided  against  the 
slaves,  upon  the  ground  that  a  negro  cannot  make  a  choice — that  they  had  no  legal 
power  to  choose — could  not  perform  the  condition  upon  which  their  freedom  de- 
pended. 

I  do  not  mention  this  with  any  purpose  of  criticising  it,  but  to  connect  it  with  the 
arguments  as  affording  additional  evidence  of  the  change  of  sentiment  upon  this 
question  of  slavery  in  the  direction  of  making  it  perpetual  and  national.  I  argue 
new  as  I  did  before,  that  there  is  such  a  tendency,  and  I  am  backed  not  merely  by 
th«  facts,  but  by  the  open  confession  in  the  slave  States. 

And  now,  as  to  the  Judge's  inference,  that  because  I  wish  to  see  slavery  placed  in 
the  course  of  ultimate  extinction  —  placed  where  our  fathers  originally  placed  it  —  I 
wi-h  to  annihilate  the  State  Legislatures  —  to  force  cotton  to  grow  upon  the  tops  of 
the  Green  Mountains  —  to  freeze  ice  in  Florida  —  to  cut  lumber  on  the  broad  Illi- 
nois prairies  —  that  I  am  in  favor  of  all  these  ridiculous  and  impossible  things. 

It  seems  to  me  it  is  a  complete  answer  to  all  this  to  ask,  if,  when  Congress  did 
have  the  fashion  of  restricting  slavery  from  free  territory ;  when  courts  did  have 
the  fashion  of  deciding  that  taking  a  slave  into  a  free  country  made  him  free  —  I 
say  it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  ask,  if  any  of  this  ridiculous  nonsense  about  consoli- 
dation, and  uniformity,  did  actually  follow?  Who  heard  of  any  such  thing,  because 
of  the  Ordinance  of  '87  ?  because  of  the  Missouri  Restriction  ?  because  of  the  nu- 
merous court  decisions  of  that  character  ? 

Now,  as  to  the  Bred  Scott  decision ;  for  upon  that  he  makes  his  last  point  at  me, 
He  'boldly  takes  ground  in  favor  of  that  decision. 

This  is  one-half  the  onslaught,  and  one-third  of  the  entire  plan  of  the  campaign. 
I  am  opposed  to  that  decision  in  a  certain  sense,  but  not  in  the  sense  which  he  puts 


61 

on  it.  I  say  that  in  so  far  as  it  decided  in  favor  of  Dred  Scott's  master,  and  against 
Dred  Scott  and  his  family,  I  do  not  propose  to  disturb  or  resist  the  decision. 

I  never  have  proposed  to  do  any  such  thing.  I  think,  that  in  respect  for  judicial 
authority,  my  humble  history  would  not  suffer  in  comparison  with  that  of  Judge 
Douglas.  lie  would  have  the  citizen  conform  his  vote  to  that  decision ;  the  member 
of  Congress,  his  ;  the  President,  his  use  of  the  veto  power.  He  would  make  it  a 
rule  of  political  action  for  the  people  and  all  the  departments  of  the  Government. 
I  would  not.  By  resisting  it  as  a  political  rule,  I  disturb  no  right  of  property,  create 
no  disorder,  excite  no  mobs. 

When  he  spoke  at  Chicago,  on  Friday  evening  of  last  week,  he  made  this  same 
point  upon  me.  On  Saturday  evening  I  replied,  and  reminded  him  of  a  Supreme 
Court  decision  which  he  opposed  for  at  least  several  years.  Last  night,  at  Bloom- 
ington,  he  took  some  notice  of  that  reply ;  but  entirely  forgot  to  remember  that  part 
of  it. 

He  renews  his  onslaught  upon  rne,  forgetting  to  remember  that  I  have  turned  the 
tables  against  himself  on  that  very  point.  I  renew  the  effort  to  draw  his  attention 
to  it.  I  wish  to  stand  erect  before  the  country,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  on  this 
question  of  judicial  authority ;  and  therefore  J  add  something  to  the  authority  in  fa- 
vor of  my  own  position.  I  wish  to  show  that  I  am  sustained  by  authority,  in  addi- 
tion to  that  heretofore  presented.  I  do  not  expect  to  convince  the  Judge.  It  is  part 
of  the  plan  of  his  campaign,  and  he  will  cling  to  it  with  a  desperate  gripe.  Even, 
turn  it  upon  him  —  the  sharp  point  against  him,  and  gaff  him  through  —  he  will 
»till  cling  to  it  till  he  can  invent  some  new  dodge  to  take  the  place  of  it. 

In  public  speaking  it  is  tedious  reading  from  documents ;  but  I  must  beg  to  indulge 
the  practice  to  a  limited  extent.  I  shall  read  from  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  Jefferson 
in  1820,  and  now  to  be  found  in  the  seventh  volume  of  his  correspondence,  at  page 
177.  It  seems  he  had  been  presented  by  a  gentleman  of  the  name  of  Jarvis  with 
a  book,  or  essay,  or  periodical,  called  the  "  Republican,"  and  he  was  writing  in  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  present,  and  noting  some  of  its  contents.  After  expressing 
the  hope  that  the  work  will  produce  a  favorable  effect  upon  the  minds  of  the  young, 
he  proceeds  to  say: 

"  That  it  will  have  this  tendency  may  be  expected,  and  for  that  reason  I  feel  an 
urgency  to  note  what  I  deem  an  error  in  it,  the  more  requiring  notice  as  your  opin- 
ion is  strengthened  by  that  of  many  others.  You  seem,  in  page  84  and  148,  to  con- 
sider the  judges  as  the  ultimate  arbiters  of  all  constitutional  questions  —  a  very  dan- 
gerous doctrine  indeed,  and  one  which  would  place  us  under  the  despotism  of  an 
oligarchy.  Our  judges  are  as  honest  as  other  men,  and  not  more  so.  They  have, 
with  others,  the  same  passions  for  party,  for  power,  and  the  privilege  of  their  corps. 
Their  maxim  is,  '  boni  judicis  est  ampliare  jurisdietionem ;'  and  their  power  is  the 
more  dangerous  as  they  are  in  office  for  life,  and  not  responsible,  as  the  other  func- 
tionaries are,  to  the  elective  control.  The  Constitution  has  erected  no  such  single 
tribunal,  knowing  that,  to  whatever  hands  confided,  with  the  corruptions  of  time  and 
party,  its  members  would  become  despots.  It  has  more  wisely  made  all  the  depart* 
ments  coequal  and  cosovereign  with  themselves." 

Thus  we  see  the  power  claimed  for  the  Supreme  Court  by  Judge  Douglas,  Mr. 
Jefferson  holds,  would  reduce  us  to  the  despotism  of  an  oligarchy. 

Now,  I  have  said  no  more  than  this  —  in  fact,  never  quite  so  much  as  this  —  at 
least  I  am  sustained  by  Mr.  Jefferson. 

Let  us  go  a  little  further.  You  remember  we  once  had  a  National  Bank.  Some 
one  owed  the  bank  a  debt ;  he  was  sued  and  sought  to  avoid  payment,  on  the  ground 
that  the  bank  was  uncon  ilitutional.  The  case  went  to  the  Supreme  Court,  and  there- 
in it  was  decided  that  the  bank  was  constitutional.  The  whole  Democratic  party  re- 
volted against  that  decision.-  General  Jackson  himself  asserted  that  he,  as  President 
would  not  be  bound  to  hold  a  National  Bank  to  be  constitutional,  even  though  the 
court  had  decided  it  to  be  so.  He  fell  in  precisely  with  the  view  of  Mr.  Jefferson, 
and  acted  upon  it  under  his  official  oath,  in  vetoing  a  charter  for  a  National  Bank. 
5 


62 

The  declaration  that  Congress  does  not  possess  this  constitutional  power  to  charter  a 
bank,  has  gone  into  the  Democratic  platform,  at  their  National  Conventions,  and  was 
brought  forward  and  reaffirmed  in  their  last  Convention  at  Cincinnati.  They  have 
contended  for  thai  declaration,  in  the  very  teeth  of  the  Supreme  Court,  for  more  than 
a  quarter  of  a.  century.  In  fact,  they  have  reduced  the  decision  to  an  absolute  nullity. 
That  decision,  I  repeat,  is  repudiated  in  the  Cincinnati  platform ;  and  still,  as  if  to 
show  that  effrontry  can  go  no  farther,  Judge  Douglas  vaunts  in  the  very  speeches  in 
which  he  denounces  me  for  opposing  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  that  he  stands  on  the 
Cincinnati  platform. 

Now,  I  wish  to  know  what  the  Judge  can  charge  upon  me,  with  respect  to  decis- 
ions of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  does  not  lie  in  all  its  length,  breadth,  and  propor- 
tions at  his  own  door.  The  plain  truth  is  simply  this :  Judge  Douglas  is  for  Su- 
preme Court  decisions  when  he  likes  and  against  them  when  he  does  not  like  them. 
He  is  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  tends  to  nationalize  slavery  —  because 
it  is  part  of  the  original  combination  for  that  object.  It  so  happens,  singularly 
enough,  that  I  never  stood  opposed  to  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  till  this.  On 
the  contrary,  I  have  no  recollection  that  he  was  ever  particularly  in  favor  of  one  till 
this.  He  never  was  in  favor  of  any,  nor  opposed  to  any,  till  the  present  one,  which 
helps  to  nationalize  slavery. 

Free  men  of  Sangamon  —  free  men  of  Illinois  —  free  men  everywhere  —  judge 
ye  between  him  and  me,  upon  this  issue. 

He  says  this  Dred  Scott  case  is  a  very  small  matter  at  most  —  that  it  has  no  prac- 
tical effect ;  that  at  best,  or  rather,  I  suppose,  at  worst,  it  is  but  an  abstraction.  1 
submit  that  the  proposition  that  the  thing  which  determines  whether  a  man  is  free  01 
a  slave,  is  rather  concrete  than  abstract.  I  think  you  would  conclude  that  it  was,  if 
your  liberty  depended  upon  it,  and  so  would  Judge  Douglas  if  his  liberty  depended 
upon  it.  But  suppose  it  was  on  the  question  of  spreading  slavery  over  the  new  Ter- 
ritories that  he  considers  it  as  being  merely  an  abstract  matter,  and  one  of  no  prac- 
tical importance.  How  has  the  planting  of  slavery  in  new  countries  always  been 
effected?  It  has  now  been  decided  that  slavery  cannot  be  kept  out  of  our  new  Ter- 
ritories by  any  legal  means.  In  what  does  our  new  Territories  now  differ  in  this  re- 
spect from  the  old  Colonies  when  slavery  was  first  planted  within  them  ?  It  was 
planted  as  Mr.  Clay  once  declared,  and  as  history  proves  true,  by  individual  men  in 
spite  of  the  wishes  of  the  people ;  the  Mother  Government  refusing  to  prohibit  it, 
and  withholding  from  the  people  of  the  Colonies  the  authority  to  prohibit  it  for  them- 
selves. Mr.  Clay  says  this  was  one  of  the  great  aud  just  causes  of  complaint  against 
Great  Britain  by  the  Colonies,  and  the  best  apology  we  cnn  now  make  for  having  ilie 
institution  amongst  us.  In  that  precise  condition  our  Nebraska  politicians  have  at 
last  succeeded  in  placing  our  own  new  Territories ;  the  Government  will  not  prohibit 
slavery  within  them,  nor  allow  the  people  to  prohibit  it. 

I  defy  any  man  to  find  any  difference  between  the  policy  which  originally 
planted  slavery  in  these  Colonies  and  that  policy  which  now  prevails  in  our  new 
Territories.  If  it  does  not  go  into  them,  it  is  only  because  no  individual  wishes  it 
to  go.  The  Judge  indulged  himself,  doubtless  to-day,  with  the  question  as  to  what  I 
am  going  to  do  with  or  about  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Well,  Judge,  will  you  please 
tell  me  what  you  did  about  the  bank  decision?  Will  you  not  graciously  allow  us  to 
do  with  the  Dred  Scott  decision  precisely  as  you  did  with  the  bank  decision  ?  You 
succeeded  in  breaking  down  the  moral  effect  of  that  decision ;  did  you  find  it  neces- 
sary to  amend  the  Constitution?  or  to  set  up  a  court  of  negroes  in  order  to  do  it? 

There  is  one  other  point.  Judge  Douglas  has  a  very  affectionate  leaning  toward 
the  Americans  and  Old  Whigs.  Last  evening,  in  a  sort  of  weeping  tone,  he  described 
to  us  a  death -bed  scene.  He  had  been  called  to  the  side  of  Mr.  Clay,  in  his  last  mo- 
ments, in  order  that  the  genius  of  "  popular  sovereignty  "  might  duly  descend  from 
the  dying  man  arid  settle  upon  him,  the  living  and  most  worthy  successor.  He  could 
do  no  less  than  promise  that  he  would  devote  the  remainder  of  his  life  to  "  popular 
sovereignty ; "  and  then  the  great  statesman  departs  in  peace.  By  this  part  of  the 


63 

"  plan  of  the  campaign,"  the  Judge  has  evidently  promised  himself  that  tears  shall 
be  drawn  down  the  cheeks  of  all  Old  Whigs,  as  large  as  half-grown  apples. 

Mr.  Webster,  too,  was  mentioned ;  but  it  did  not  quite  come  to  a  death-bed  scene, 
as  to  him.  It  would  be  amusing,  if  it  were  not  disgusting,  to  see  how  quick  these 
compromise-breakers  administer  on  the  political  effects  of  their  dead  adversaries, 
trumpirg  up  claims  never  before  heard  of,  and  dividing  the  assets  among  themselves. 
If  I  rihould  be  found  dead  to-morrow  morning,  nothing  but  my  insignificance  could 
prevent  a  speech  being  made  on  my  authority,  before  the  end  of  next  week.  It  so 
happens  that  in  that  "  popular  sovereignty  "  with  which  Mr.  Clay  was  identified,  the 
Missouri  Compromise  was  expressly  reserved ;  and  it  was  a  little  singular  if  Mr. 
Clay  cast  his  mantle  upon  Judge  Douglas  on  purpose  to  have  that  compromise  re- 
pealed. 

Again,  the  Judge  did  not  keep  faith  with  Mr.  Clay  when  he  first  brought  in  his 
Nebraska  bill.  He  left  the  Missouri  Compromise  unrepealed,  and  in  his  report  ac- 
companying the  bill,  he  told  the  world  he  did  it  on  purpose.  The  manes  of  Mr. 
Clay  must  have  been  in  great  agony,  till  thirty  days  later,  when  "  popular  sovereign- 
ty "  stood  forth  in  all  its  glory. 

One  more  thing.  Last  night  Judge  Douglas  tormented  himself  with  horrors 
about  my  disposition  to  make  negroes  perfectly  equal  with  white  men  in  social  and 
political  relations.  He  did  not  stop  to  show  that  I  have  said  any  such  thing,  or  that 
it  legitimately  follows  from  any  thing  I  have  said,  but  he  rushes  on  with  his  asser- 
tions. I  adhere  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  If  Judge  Douglas  and  his 
friends  are  not  willing  to  stand  by  it,  let  them  come  up  and  amend  it.  Let  them 
make  it  read  that  all  men  are  created  equal  except  negroes.  Let  us  have  it  decided, 
whether  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  in  this  blessed  year  of  1858,  shall  be  thus 
amended.  In  his  construction  of  the  Declaration  last  year,  he  said  it  only  meant 
that  Americans  in  America  were  equal  to  Englishmen  in  England.  Then,  when  I 
pointed  out  to  him  that  by  that  rule  he  excludes  the  Germans,  the  Irish,  the  Portu- 
guese, and  all  the  other  people  who  have  come  amongst  us  since  the  Revolution,  he 
reconstructs  his  construction.  In  his  last  speech  he  tells  us  it  meant  Europeans. 

I  press  him  a  little  further,  and  ask  if  it  meant  to  include  the  Russians  in  Asia  ? 
or  does  he  mean  to  exclude  that  vast  population  from  the  principles  of  our  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  ?  I  expect  ere  long  he  will  introduce  another  amendment  to 
his  definition.  He  is  not  at  all  particular.  He  is  satisfied  with  any  thing  which  does 
not  endanger  the  nationalizing  of  negro  slavery.  It  may  draw  white  men  down,  but 
it  must  not  lift  negroes  up.  Who  shall  say,  "  I  am  the  superior,  and  you  are  the  in- 
ferior ?  " 

My  declarations  upon  this  subject  of  negro  slavery  may  be  misrepresented,  but 
cannot  be  misunderstood.  I  have  said  that  I  do  not  understand  the  Declaration  to 
mean  that  all  men  were  created  equal  in  all  respects.  They  are  not  our  equal  in 
color ;  but  I  suppose  that  it  does  mean  to  declare  that  all  men  are  equal  in  some  re- 
spects ;  they  are  equal  in  their  right  to  "  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.* 
Certainly  the  negro  is  not  our  equal  in  color  •• —  perhaps  not  in  many  other  respects  j 
still,  in  the  right  to  put  into  his  mouth  the  bread  that  his  own  hands  have  earned,  he 
is  the  equal  of  every  other  man,  white  or  black.  In  pointing  out  that  more  has  been 
given  you,  you  cannot  be  justified  in  taking  away  the  little  which  has  been  given 
him.  All  I  ask  for  the  negro  is  that  if  you  do  not  like  him,  let  him  alone.  If  God 
gave  him  but  little,  that  little  let  him  enjoy. 

W  hen  our  Government  was  established,  we  had  the  institution  of  slavery  among 
us.  We  were  in  a  certain  sense  compelled  to  tolerate  its  existence.  It  was  a  sort 
of  necessity.  We  had  gone  through  our  struggle,  and  secured  our  own  independ- 
ence. The  framers  of  the  Constitution  found  the  institution  of  slavery  amongst 
their  other  institutions  at  the  time.  They  found  that  by  an  effort  to  eradicate  it, 
they  might  lose  much  of  what  they  had  already  gained.  They  were  obliged  to  bow 
to  the  necessity.  They  gave  power  to  Congress  to  abolish  the  slave  trade  at  the 
end  of  twenty  years.  Tiiey  also  prohibited  it  in  the  Territories  where  it  did  not  ex- 


64 

isi.  They  did  what  they  could  and  yielded  to  the  necessity  for  the  rest.  I  also  yield 
to  all  which  follows  from  that  necessity.  What  I  would  most  desire  would  be  the 
separation  of  the  white  and  black  races. 

One  more  point  on  this  Springfield  speech  which  Judge  Douglas  says  he  has  read 
«o  carefully.  I  expressed  rny  belief  in  the  existence  of  a  conspiracy  to  perpetuate 
and  nationalize  slavery.  I  did  not  profess  to  know  it,  nor  do  I  now.  I  showed  the 
part  Judge  Douglas  had  played  in  the  string  of  facts,  constituting  to  my  mind  the 
proof  of  that  conspiracy.  I  showed  the  parts  played  by  others. 

I  charged  that  the  people  had  been  deceived  into  carrying  the  last  Presidential 
election,  by  the  impression  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  might  exclude  slavery 
if  they  chose,  when  it  was  known  in  advance  by  the  conspirators,  that  the  court  was 
to  decide  that  neither  Congress  nor  the  people  could  so  exclude  slavery.  These 
charges  are  more  distinctly  made  than  anything  else  in  the  speech. 

Judge  Douglas  has  carefully  read  and  re-read  that  speech.  He  has  not,  so  far  as 
I  know,  contradicted  those  charges.  In  the  two  speeches  which  I  heard,  he  certainly 
did  not.  On  his  own  tacit  admission  I  renew  that  charge.  I  charge  him  with  hav- 
ing been  a  party  to  that  conspiracy  and  to  that  deception  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
nationalizing  slavery. 


THE  following  is  the  correspondence  betwen  the  two  rival  candidates  for  the 
United  States  Senate: 

Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas. 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  July  24,  1858. 

Hon.  S.  A.  DOUGLAS — My  Dear  Sir:  Will  it  be  agreeable  to  you  to  make  an  arrangement  for 
you  and  myself  to  divide  time,  and  address  the  same  audiences  the  present  canvass  ?  Mr.  Judd, 
who  will  band  you  this,  is  authorized  to  receive  your  answer ;  and,  if  agreeable  to  you,  to  enter 
into  the  terms  of  such  arrangement.  Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  LINCOLN. 


Mir.  Douglas  to  Mr.  Lincoln. 

CHICAGO,  July  24,  1858. 

HOD  A.  LINCOLN — Dear  Sir:  Your  note  of  this  date,  in  which  you  inquire  if  it  would  be 
agreeable  to  me  to  make  an  arrangement  to  divide  the  time  and  address  the  same  audiences 
during  the  present  canvass,  was  handed  me  by  Mr.  Judd.  Recent  events  have  interposed  difficul- 
ties in  the  way  of  such  an  arrangement. 

I  went  to  Springfield  last  week  for  the  purpose  of  conferring  with  the  Democratic  State  Central 
Committee  upon  the  mode  of  conducting  the  canvass,  and  with  them,  and  under  their  advice, 
made  a  list  of  appointments  covering  the  entire  period  until  late  in  October.  The  people  of  the 
several  localities  have  been  notified  of  the  times  and  places  of  the  meetings.  Those  appointments 
have  all  been  made  for  Democratic  meetings,  and  arrangements  have  been  made  by  which  the 
O^mocratic  candidates  for  Congress,  for  the  Legislature,  and  other  offices,  will  be  present  and 
address  the  people.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  these  various  candidates,  in  connection  with 
ray«*elf,  will  occupy  the  whole  time  of  the  day  and  evening,  and  leave  no  opportunity  for  other 


Besides,  there  is  another  consideration  which  should  be  kept  in  mind.  It  has  been  suggested 
recently  that  an  arrangement  had  been  made  to  bring  out  a  third  candidate  for  the  United  States 
Senate,  who,  with  yourself,  should  canvass  the  State  in  opposition  to  me,  with  no  other  purpose 
than  to  insure  my  defeat,  by  dividing  the  Democratic  party  for  your  benefit.  If  I  should  make 
this  arrangement  with  you,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  this  other  candidate,  who  has  a  common 
object  with  you,  would  desire  to  become  a  party  to  it,  and  claim  the  right  to  speak  from  the  same 
stand ;  so  that  he  and  you,  in  concert,  might  be  able  to  take  the  opening  and  closing  speech  in  every 

186. 

I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  my  surprise,  if  it  was  your  original  intention  to  invite  such  an 


65 

arrangement,  that  you  should  have  waited  until  after  I  had  made  my  appointments,  inasmuch  m 
we  were  both  here  in  Chicago  together  for  several  days  after  my  arrival,  and  again  at  Blooming- 
ton,  Atlanta,  Lincoln  and  Springfield,  where  it  was  well  known  I  went  for  the  purpose  of  coo- 
suiting  with  the  State  Central  Committee,  and  agreeing  upon  the  plan  of  the  campaign. 

While,  under  these  circumstances,  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  make  any  arrangements  whicb 
would  deprive  the  Democratic  candidates  for  Congress,  State;  officers,  and  the  Legislature  froip 
participating  in  the  discussion  at  the  various  meetings  designated  by  the  Democratic  State  Central 
Committee,  I  will,  in  order  to  accommodate  you  as  far  as  it  is  in  my  power  to  do  so,  take  th« 
responsibility  of  making  an  arrangement  with  you  for  a  discussion  between  us  at  one  prominent 
point  in  each  Congressional  District  in  the  State,  except  the  second  and  sixth  districts,  where  w* 
have  both  spoken,  and  in  each  of  which  cases  you  had  the  concluding  speech.  If  agreeable  to 
you,  I  will  indicate  the  following  places  as  those  most  suitable  in  the  several  Congressional  Di^ 
tricts  at  which  we  should  speak,  to  wit :  Freeport,  Ottawa,  Galesburg,  Quincy,  Alton,  Jonesboro 
and  Charleston.  I  will  confer  with  you  at  the  earliest  convenient  opportunity  in  regard  to  the 
mode  of  conducting  the  debate,  the  times  of  meeting  at  the  several  places,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tion, that  where  appointments  have  already  been  made  by  the  Democratic  State  Central  Committt* 
at  any  of  those  places,  I  must  insist  upon  you  meeting  me  at  the  times  specified. 
Very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS 


Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas. 

SPRINGFIELD,  July  29,  1858. 

Hon.  S.  A  DOUGLAS — Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  the  24th  in  relation  to  an  arrangement  to  divide 
time,  and  address  the  same  audiences,  is  received  ;  and,  in  apology  for  not  sooner  replying,  allow 
me  to  say,  that  when  I  sat  by  you  at  dinner  yesterday,  I  was  not  aware  that  you  had  answered 
my  note,  nor,  certainly,  that  my  own  note  had  been  presented  to  you.  An  hour  after,  I  saw  a 
copy  of  your  answer  in  the  Chicago  Times,  and,  reaching  home,  I  found  the  original  awaiting  me. 
Protesting  that  your  insinuations  of  attempted  unfairness  on  my  part  are  unjust,  and  with  the 
hope  that  you  did  not  very  considerately  make  them,  I  proceed  to  reply.  To  your  statement  that 
;'  It  has  been  suggested,  recently,  that  an  arrangement  had  been  made  to  bring  out  a  third  candi- 
date for  the  U.  S.  Senate,  who,  with  yourself,  should  canvass  the  State  in  opposition  to  me,"  etc., 
I  can  only  say,  that  such  suggestion  must  have  been  made  by  yourself,  for  certainly  none  such 
has  been  made  by  or  to  me,  or  otherwise,  to  my  knowledge.  Surely  you  did  not  deliberately  con- 
clude, as  you  insinuate,  that  I  was  expecting  to  draw  you  into  an  arrangement  of  terms,  to  be 
agreed  on  by  yourself,  by  which  a  third  candidate  and  myself,  "in  concert,  might  be  able  to  take 
the  opening  and  closing  speech  in  every  case." 

As  to  your  surprise  that  I  did  not  sooner  make  the  proposal  to  divide  time  with  you,  I  can  only 
say,  I  made  it  as  soon  as  I  resolved  to  make  it.  I  did  not  know  but  that  such  proposal  would 
come  from  you ;  I  waited,  respectfully,  to  see.  It  may  have  been  well  known  to  you  that  you 
went  to  Springfield  for  the  purpose  of  agreeing  on  the  plan  of  campaign  ;  but  it  was  not  so  known 
tome.  When  your  appointments  were  announced  in  the  papers,  extending  only  to  the  2 1st  of 
August,  I,  for  the  first  time,  considered  it  certain  that  you  would  make  no  proposal  to  me,  and  then 
resolved  that,  if  my  friends  concurred,  I  would  make  one  to  you.  As  soon  thereafter  as  I  could 
see  and  consult  with  friends  satisfactorily,  I  did  make  the  proposal.  It  did  not  occur  to  me  that 
the  proposed  arrangement  could  derange  your  plans  after  the  latest  of  your  appointments  already 
made.  After  that,  there  was,  before  the  election,  largely  over  two  months  of  clear  time. 

For  you  to  say  that  we  have  already  spoken  at  Chicago  and  Springfield,  and  that  on  both  occa- 
sions I  had  the  concluding  speech,  is  hardly  a  fair  statement.  The  truth  rather  is  this :  At 
Chicago,  July  9th,  you  made  a  carefully-prepared  conclusion  on  my  speech  of  June  16th.  Twenty- 
four  hours  after,  I  made  a  hasty  conclusion  on  yours  of  the  9th.  You  had  six  days  to  prepare, 
and  concluded  on  me  again  at  Bloomington  on  the  16th.  Twenty-four  hours  after,  I  concluded 
again  on  you  at  Springfield.  In  the  meantime,  you  had  made  another  conclusion  on  me  at  Spring- 
field, which  I  did  not  hear,  and  of  the  contents  of  which  I  knew  nothing  when  I  spoke  ;  so  that 
your  speech  made  in  daylight,  and  mine  at  night,  of  the  17th,  at  Springfield,  were  both  made  in 
perfect  independence  of  each  other.  The  dates  of  making  all  these  speeches  will  show,  I  tbink. 
that  in  the  matter  of  time  for  preparation,  the  advantage  has  all  been  on  your  side ;  and  that 
none  of  the  external  circumstances  have  stood  to  my  advantage. 

I  agree  to  an  arrangement  for  us  to  speak  at  the  seven  places  you  have  named,  and  at  your 
own  times,  provided  you  name  the  times  at  once,  so  that  I,  as  well  as  you,  can  have  to  myself  the 
time  not  covered  by  the  arrangement.  As  to  the  other  details,  I  wish  perfect  reciprocity,  and  no 
more.  I  wish  as  much  time  as  you,  and  that  conclusions  shall  alternate.  That  is  all. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

P.  S.  As  matters  now  stand,  I  shall  be  at  no  more  of  your  exclusive  meetings ;  and  for  about 
a  week  from  to-day  a  letter  from  you  will  reach  me  at  Springfield.  A.  L. 


66 

Mr.  Douglas  to  Mr.  Lincoln. 

BEMENT,  PIATT  Co.,  ILL.,  July  30,  1858. 

Dear  Sir:  ^Your  letter,  dated  yesterday,  accepting  my  proposition  for  a  joint  discussicai  at  on« 
prominent  point  in  each  Congressional  District,  as  stated  in  my  previous  letter,  was  received  thia 
morning. 

The  times  and  places  designated  are  as  follows : 

Ottawa,  La  Salle  County August       21st,  1858. 

Freeport,  Stephenson  County "  27th,     " 

Jonesboro,  Union  County September  15th,     " 

Charleston,  Coles  County «•  18th,     " 

Galesburgh,  Knox  County October        7th,     " 

Quiucy,  Adams  County "  13th,     " 

Alton,  Madison  County "  15th,     " 

1  agree  to  your  suggestion  that  we  shall  alternately  open  and  close  the  discussion.  I  will  speak 
*l  Ottawa  one  honr,  you  can  reply,  occupying  an  hour  and  a  half,  and  I  will  then  follow  for  half 
an  hour.  At  Freeport,  you  shall  open  the  discussion  and  speak  one  hour,  I  will  follow  for  an 
hour  and  a  half,  and  you  can  then  reply  for  half  an  hour.  We  will  alternate  in  like  manner  in 
each  successive  place. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 
Hon.  A.  LIXCOI.X,  Springfield,  111. 


Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas. 

SPRINGFIELD,  July  31.  1858. 

Hon.  S.  A.  DOUGLAS  —  Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  yesterday,  naming  places,  times  and  terms,  for 
joint  discussions  between  us,  was  received  this  morning.  Although,  by  the  terms,  as  you  pro- 
pose, you  take  four  openings  and  closes,  to  my  three,  I  accede,  and  thus  close  the  arrangement.  I 
direct  this  to  you  at  Hillsboro,  and  shall  try  to  have  both  your  letter  and  this  appear  in  the 
Journal  and  Register  of  Monday  morning.  Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  LINCOLN. 


FIRST  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  OTTAWA, 

August  21,  1858. 


MR.  DOUGLAS'S  SPEECH. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  I  appear  before  you  to-day  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
cussing the  leading  political  topics  which  now  agitate  the  public  mind.  By  an  ar- 
rangement between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself,  we  are  present  here  to-day  for  the  pur- 
pose of  having  a  joint  discussion,  as  the  representatives  of  the  two  great  political 
parties  of  the  State  and  Union,  upon  the  principles  in  issue  between  those  parties ; 
and  this  vast  concourse  of  people  shows  the  deep  feeling  which  pervades  the  public 
mind  in  regard  to  the  questions  dividing  us. 

Prior  to  1854  this  country  was  divided  into  two  great  political  parties,  known  as 
the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties.  Both  were  national  and  patriotic,  advocating 
principles  that  were  universal  in  their  application.  An  old  line  Whig  could  proclaim 
his  principles  in  Louisiana  and  Massachusetts  alike.  Whig  principles  had  no  boun- 
dary sectional  line — they  were  not  limited  by  the  Ohio  river,  nor  by  the  Potomac, 
nor  by  the  line  of  the  free  and  slave  States,  but  applied  and  were  proclaimed  wher- 
ever the  Constitution  ruled  or  the  American  flag  waved  over  the  American  soil.  So 
it  was,  and  so  it  is  with  the  great  Democratic  party,  which,  from  the  days  of  Jeffer- 
son until  this  period,  has  proven  itself  to  be  the  historic  party  of  this  nation.  While 
the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties  differed  in  regard  to  a  bank,  the  tariff,  distribution, 


67 

the  specie  circular  and  the  sub-treasury,  they  agreed  on  the  great  slavery  question 
which  now  agitates  the  Union.  I  .say  that  the  Whig  party  anil  the  Democratic  party 
agreed  on  this  slavery  question,  while  they  differed  on  those  matters  of  expediency 
to  which  1  have  referred.  The  Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party  jointly  adopted 
the  Compromise  measures  of  18.30  as  the  basis  of  a  proper  and  just  solution  of  this 
slavery  question  in  all  its  forms.  Clay  was  the  great  leader,  with  Webster  on  his 
right  and  Cass  on  his  left,  and  sustained  by  the  patriots  in  the  Whig  and  Democratic 
ranks,  who  had  devised  and  enacted  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850. 

In  1851,  the  Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party  united  in  Illinois  in  adopting 
resolutions  indorsing  and  approving  the  principles  of  the  Compromise  measures  of 
1850,  as  the  proper  adjustment  of  that  question.  In  1852,  when  the  Whig  party 
assembled  in  Convention  at  Baltimore  for  the  purpose  of  nominating  a. candidate  for 
the  Presidency,  the  first  thing  it  did  was  to  declare  the  Compromise  measures  of 
1850,  in  substance  and  in  principle,  a  suitable  adjustment  of  that  question.  [Here 
the  speaker  was  interrupted  by  loud  and  long-continued  applause.]  My  friends, 
silence  will  be  more  acceptable  to  me  in  the  discussion  of  these  questions  than  ap- 
plause. I  desire  to  address  myself  to  your  judgment,  your  understanding,  and  your 
consciences,  and  not  to  your  passions  or  your  enthusiasm.  When  the  Democratic 
Convention  assembled  in  Baltimore  in  the  same  year,  for  the  purpose  of  nominating 
a  Democratic  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  it  also  adopted  the  Compromise  measures 
of  1850  as  the  basis  of  Democratic  action.  Thus  you  see  that  up  to  1853-'54,  the 
Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party  both  stood  on  the  same  platform  with  regard 
to  the  slavery  question.  That  platform  was  the  right  of  the  people  of  each  State 
and  each  Territory  to  decide  their  local  and  domestic  institutions  for  themselves,  sub- 
ject only  to  the  Federal  Constitution. 

During  the  session  of  Congress  of  1853-'54, 1  introduced  into  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  a  bill  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  on  that  principle 
which  had  been  adopted  in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  approved  by  the  Whig 
party  and  the  Democratic  party  in  Illinois  in  1851,  and  indorsed  by  the  Whig  party 
and  the  Democratic  party  in  National  Convention  in  1852.  In  order  that  there 
might  be  no  misunderstanding  in  relation  to  the  principle  involved  in  the  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  bill,  I  put  forth  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  in  these  words :  "  It 
is  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or  Ter- 
ritory, or  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Federal 
Constitution."  Thus,  you  see,  that  up  to  1854,  when  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill 
was  brought  into  Congress  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  principles  which  both 
parries  had  up  to  that  time  indorsed  and  approved,  there  had  been  no  division  in  this 
country  in  regard  to  that  principle  except  the  opposition  of  the  Abolitionists.  In 
the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Illinois  Legislature,  upon  a  resolution  asserting 
that  principle,  every  Whig  and  every  Democrat  in  the  House  voted  in  the  affirma- 
tive, and  only  four  men  voted  against  it,  and  those  four  were  old  line  Abolitionists. 

In  1854,  Mr.  Abraham  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Trumbull  entered  into  an  arrangement, 
one  with  the  other,  and  each  with  his  respective  friends,  to  dissolve  the  old  Whig 
party  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  dissolve  the  old  Democratic  party  on  the  other,  and  to 
connect  the  members  of  both  into  an  Abolition  party,  under  the  name  and  disguise  of 
a  Republican  party.  The  terms  of  that  arrangement  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr. 
Trumbull  have  been  published  to  the  world  by  Mr.  Lincoln's  special  friend,  James 
H.  Matheny,  Esq.,  and  they  were,  that  Lincoln  should  have  Shields's  place  in  the 
United  States  Senate,  which  was  then  about  to  become  vacant,  and  that  Trumbull 
should  have  my  seat  when  my  term  expired.  Lincoln  went  to  work  to  Abolitionize 
the  old  Whig  party  all  over  the  State,  pretending  that  he  was  then  as  good  a  Whig 
as  ever ;  and  Trumbull  went  to  work  in  his  part  of  the  State  preaching  Abolitionism 
in  its  milder  and  lighter  form,  and  trying  to  Abolitionize  the  Democratic  party,  and 
bring  old  Democrats  handcuffed  and  bound  hand  and  foot  into  the  Abolition  camp. 
Jo  pursuance  of  the  arrangement,  the  parties  met  at  Springfield  iii  October,  1854, 


68 

and  proclaimed  their  new  platform.  Lincoln  was  to  bring  into  the  Abolition  camp 
the  old  line  "Whigs,  and  transfer  them  over  to  Giddings,  Chase,  Fred.  Douglass,  and 
Parson  Lovejoy,  who  were  ready  to  receive  them  and  christen  them  in  their  new 
faith.  They  laid  down  on  that  occasion  a  platform  for  their  new  Republican  party, 
which  was  to  be  thus  constructed.  I  have  the  resolutions  of  their  State  Convention 
then  held,  which  was  the  first  mass  State  Convention  ever  held  in  Illinois  by  the 
Black  Republican  party,  and  I  now  hold  them  in  my  hands  and  will  read  a  part  of 
them,  and  cause  the  others  to  be  printed.  Here  are  the  most  important  and  material 
resolutions  of  this  Abolition  platform : 

1.  Resolved,  That  we  believe  this  truth  to  be  self-evident,  that  when  parties  become  subversiva 
of  the  ends  for  which  they  are  established,  or  incapable  of  restoring  the  Government  to  the  true 
principles  of  the  Constitution,  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  the  people  to  dissolve  the  political  bands 
by  which  they  may  have  been  connected  therewith,  and  to  organize  new  parties  upon  such  princi- 
ples and  with  such  views  as  the  circumstances  and  exigencies  of  the  nation  may  demand. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  times  imperatively  demand  the  reorganization  of  parties,  and,  repudiating 
all  previous  party  attachments,  names  and  predilections,  we  unite  ourselves  together  in  defense  of 
the  liberty  and  Constitution  of  the  country,  and  will  hereafter  cooperate  as  the  Republican  party, 
pledged  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  following  purposes  :  To  bring  the  administration  of  the 
Government  back  to  the  control  of  first  principles  ;  to  restore  Nebraska  and  Kansas  to  the  position 
of  free  Territories  ;  that,  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  vests  in  the  States,  and  not  in 
Congress,  the  power  to  legislate  for  the  extradition  of  fugitives  from  labor,  to  repeal  and  entirely 
abrogate  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  ;  to  restrict  slavery  to  those  States  in  which  it  exists ;  to  prohibit 
the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union  ;  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Co- 
lumbia ;  to  exclude  slavery  from  all  the  Territories  over  which  the  General  Government  has  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction  ;  and  to  resist  the  acquirements  of  any  more  Territories  unless  the  practice  of 
slavery  therein  forever  shall  have  been  prohibited. 

3.  Resolved,  That  in  furtherance  of  these  principles  we  will  use  such  Constitutional  and  lawful 
means  as  shall  seem  best  adapted  to  their  accomplishment,  and  that  we  will  support  no  man  for 
office,  under  the  General  or  State  Government,  who  is  not  positively  and  fully  committed  to  the 
support  of  these  principles,  and  whose  personal  character  and  conduct  is  not  a  guaranty  that  he 
is  reliable,  arid  who  shall  not  have  abjured  old  party  allegiance  and  ties. 

Now,  gentlemen,  your  Black  Republicans  have  cheered  every  one  of  those  prop- 
ositions, and  yet  I  venture  to  say  that  you  cannot  get  Mr.  Lincoln  to  come  out  and 
say  that  he  is  now  in  favor  of  each  one  of  them.  That  these  propositions,  one  and 
all,  constitute  the  platform  of  the  Black  Republican  party  of  this  day,  I  have  no 
doubt ;  and  when  you  were  not  aware  for  what  purpose  I  was  reading  them,  your 
Black  Republicans  cheered  them  as  good  Black  Republican  doctrines.  My  object  in 
reading  these  resolutions,  was  to  put  the  question  to  Abraham  Lincoln  this  day, 
whether  he  now  stands  and  will  stand  by  each  article  in  that  creed,  and  carry  it  out. 
I  desire  to  know  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  to-day  stands  as  he  did  in  1854,  in  favor  of 
the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether 
he  stalls  pledged  to-day,  as  he  did  in  1854,  against  the  admission  of  any  more  slave 
States  into  the  Union,  even  if  the  people  want  them.  I  want  to  know  whether  he 
stands  pledged  against  the  admission  of  a  new  State  into  the  Union  with  such  a  Con- 
stitution as  the  people  of  that  State  may  see  fit  to  make.  I  want  to  know  whether 
he  stands  to-day  pledged  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  I 
desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  the  prohibition  of  the  slave  trade 
between  the  different  States.  I  desire  to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  prohibit 
slavery  in  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  Nortk  as  well  as  South  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line.  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  is  opposed  to  the  ac- 
quisition of  any  more  territory  unless  slavery  is  prohibited  therein.  I  want  his  an- 
swer io  these  questions.  Your  affirmative  cheers  in  favor  of  this  Abolition  platform 
is  not  satisfactory.  I  ask  Abraham  Lincoln  to  answer  these  questions,  in  order  that, 
when  I  trot  him  down  to  lower  Egypt,  I  may  put  the  same  questions  to  him.  My 
principles  are  the  same  everywhere.  I  can  proclaim  them  alike  in  the  North,  the 
South,  the  East,  and  the  West.  My  principles  will  apply  wherever  the  Constitution  ( 
prevails  and  the  American  flag  waves.  I  desire  to  know  whether  Mr.  Lincoln's  prin- 
ciples will  bear  transplanting  from  Ottawa  to  Jonesboro  ?  I  put  these  questions  to 
him  to-day  distinctly,  and  ask  an  answer.  I  have  a  right  to  an  answer,  for  I  quote 


69 

from  the  pfatform  of  the  Republican  party,  made  by  himself  and  others  at  the  time 
that  party  was  formed,  and  the  bargain  made  by  Lincoln  to  dissolve  and  kill  th<».  old 
Whig  party,  and  transfer  its  members,  bound  hand  and  foot,  to  the  Abolition  party, 
under  the  direction  of  Giddings  and  Fred  Douglass.  In  the  remarks  I  have  made 
on  this  platform,  and  the  position  of  Mr.  Lincoln  upon  it,  I  mean  nothing  personally 
disrespectful  or  unkind  to  that  gentleman.  I  have  known  him  for  nearly  twenty -five 
years.  There  were  many  points  of  sympathy  between  us  when  we  first  got  ac- 
quainted. We  were  both  comparatively  boys,  and  both  struggling  with  poverty  in  a 
strange  land.  I  was  a  school-teacher  in  the  'town  of  Winchester,  and  he  a  flourishing 
grocery-keeper  in  the  town  of  Salem.  He  was  more  successful  in  his  occupation 
than  I  was  in  mine,  and  hence  more  fortunate  in  this  world's  goods.  Lincoln  is  one 
of  those  peculiar  men  who  perform  with  admirable  skill  everything  which  they  un- 
dertake. I  made  as  good  a  school-teacher  as  I  could,  and  when  a  cabinet  maker  I 
made  a  good  bedstead  and  tables,  although  my  old  boss  said  I  succeeded  better  with 
bureaus  and  secretaries  than  with  anything  else ;  but  I  believe  that  Lincoln  was  al- 
ways more  successful  in  business  than  I,  for  his  business  enabled  him  to  get  into  the 
Legislature.  I  met  him  there,  however,  and  had  a  sympathy  with  him,  because  of 
the  up-hill  struggle  we  both  had  in  life.  He  was  then  just  as  good  at  telling  an  anec- 
dote as  now.  He  could  beat  any  of  the  boys  wrestling,  or  running  a  foot-race,  in 
pitching  quoits  or  tossing  a  copper;  could  ruin  more  liquor  than  all  the  boys  of  the 
town  together,  and  the  dignity  and  impartiality  with  which  he  presided  at  a  horse- 
race or  fist-fight,  excited  the  admiration  and  won  the  praise  of  everybody  that  was 
present  and  participated.  I  sympathised  with  him,  because  he  was  struggling  with 
difficulties,  and  so  was  I.  Mr.  Lincoln  served  with  me  in  the  Legislature  in  1836, 
when  we  both  retired,  and  he  subsided,  or  became  submerged,  and  he  was  lost  sight 
of  as  a  public  man  for  some  years.  In  1846,  when  Wilmot  introduced  his  celebrated 
proviso,  and  the  Abolition  tornado  swept  over  the  country,  Lincoln  again  turned  up 
as  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  Sangamon  district  I  was  then  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  and  was  glad  to  welcome  my  old  friend  and  companion.  Whilst 
in  Congress,  he  distinguished  himself  by  his  opposition  to  the  Mexican  war,  talcing 
the  side  of  the  common  enemy  against  his  own  country ;  and  when  he  returned  home 
he  found  that  the  indignation  of  the  people  followed  him  everywhere,  and  he  was 
again  submerged  or  obliged  to  retire  into  private  life,  forgotten  by  his  former  friends. 
He  came  up  again  in  1854,  just  in  time  to  make  this  Abolition  or  Black  Republican 
platform,  in  company  with  Giddings,  Lovejoy,  Chase  and  Fred  Douglass,  for  the 
Republican  party  to  stand  upon.  Trumbull,  too,  was  one  of  our  own  cotemporaries. 
He  was  born  and  raised  in  old  Connecticut,  was  bred  a  Federalist,  but  removing  to 
Georgia,  turned  Nullifier,  when  nullification  was  popular,  and  as  soon  as  he  disposed 
of  his  clocks  and  wound  up  his  business,  migrated  to  Illinois,  turned  politician  and 
lawyer  here,  and  made  his  appearance  in  1841,  as  a  member  of  the  Legislature.  He 
became  noted  as  the  author  of  the  scheme  to  repudiate  a  large  portion  of  the  State 
debt  of  Illinois,  which,  if  successful,  would  have  brought  infamy  and  disgrace  jpon 
the  fair  escutcheon  of  our  glorious  State.  The  odium  attached  to  that  measure  con- 
signed him  to  oblivion  for  a  time.  I  helped  to  do  it.  I  walked  into  a  public  meet- 
ing in  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  replied  to  his  repudiating 
speeches,  and  resolutions  were  carried  over  his  head  denouncing  repudiation,  and  as- 
serting the  moral  and  legal  obligation  of  Illinois  to  pay  every  dollar  of  the  debt  she 
owed  and  every  bond  that  bore  her  seal.  Trumbull's  malignity  has  followed  me  since 
I  thus  defeated  his  infamous  scheme. 

These  two  men  having  formed  this  combination  to  abolitionize  the  old  Whig  party 
and  the  old  Democratic  party,  and  put  themselves  into  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  in  pursuance  of  their  bai»gain,  are  now  carrying  out  that  arrangement. 
Matheny  states  that  Trumbull  broke  faith ;  that  the  bargain  was  that  Lincoln  should 
be  the  Senator  in  Shields's  place,  and  Trumbull  was  to  wait  for  mine ;  and  the  story 
goes,  that  Trumbull  cheated  Lincoln,  having  control  of  four  or  five  abolitionized 
Democrats  who  were  holding  over  in  the  Senate ;  he  would  not  let  them  vote  for 


70 

Lincoln,  and  which  obliged  the  rest  of  the  Abolitionists  to  support  him  in  order  to 
secure  tin  Abolition  Senator.  There  are  a  number  of  authorities  for  the  truth  oi 
this  besides  Matheny,  and  I  suppose  that  even  Mr.  Lincoln  will  not  deny  it. 

Mr.  Lincoln  demands  that  he  shall  have  the  place  intended  tor  Trumbnll,  as 
Truvnbull  cheated  him  and  got  his,  and  Trumbull  is  stumping  the  State  traducing 
me  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  position  for  Lincoln,  in  order  to  quiet  him.  It 
was  in  consequence  of  this  arrangement  that  the  Republican  Convention  was  itnpan- 
neled  to  instruct  for  Lincoln  arid  nobody  else,  and  it  was  on  this  account  that  they 
passed  resolutions  that  he  was  their  first,  their  last,  and  their  only  choice.  Archy 
Williams  was  nowhere,  Browning  was  nobody,  Wentworth  was  not  to  be  considered; 
they  had  no  man  in  the  Republican  party  for  the  place  except  Lincoln,  for  the  reason 
that  lie  demanded  that  they  should  carry  out  the  arrangement. 

Having  formed  this  new  party  for  the  benefit  of  deserters  from  Whiggery,  and 
deserters  from  Democracy,  and  having  laid  down  the  Abolition  platform  which  I 
have  read,  Lincoln  now  takes  his  stand  and  proclaims  his  Abolition  doctrines.  Let 
me  read  a  part  of  them.  In  his  speech* at  Springfield  to  the  Convention,  which 
nominated  him  for  the  Senate,  he  said  : 

"In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed. 
'A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  government  cannot 
endure  permanently  half  Slave  and  half  Free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dis- 
solved— I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall — but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided* 
It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will 
arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the 
belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction:  or  its  advocates  will  push  it 
forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States — old  as  well  as  new,  North 
as  well  as  South." 

["Good,"  "good,"  and  cheers.] 

1  am  delighted  to  hear  you  Black  Republicans  say  "good."  I  have  no  doubt  that 
doctrine  expresses  your  sentiments,  and  I  \vill  prove  to  you  now,  if  you  will  listen 
to  me,  that  it  is  revolutionary  and  destructive  of  the  existence  of  this  Government. 
Mr.  Lincoln,  in  the  extract  from  which  I  have  read,  says  that  this  Government  can- 
not endure  permanently  in  the  same  condition  in  which  it  was  made  by  its  framers — 
divided  into  free  and  slave  States.  He  says  that  it  has  existed  for  about  seventy 
years  thus  divided,  and  yet  he  tells  you  that  it  cannot  endure  permanently  on  the 
same  principles  and  in  the  same  relative  condition  in  which  our  fathers  made  it. 
"Why  can  it  not  exist  divided  into  free  and  slave  States ?  Washington,  Jefferson, 
'Franklin,  Madison,  Hamilton,  Jay,  and  the  great  men  of  that  day,  made  this  Gov- 
ernment divided  into  free  States  and  slave  States,  and  left  each  State  perfectly  free 
to  do  as  it  pleased  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Why  can  it  not  exist  on  the  same 
principles  on  which  our  fathers  made  it?  They  knew  when  they  framed  the  Consti- 
tution that  in  a  country  as  wide  and  broad  as  this,  with  such  a  variety  of  climate, 
production  and  interest,  the  people  necessarily  required  different  laws  and  institutions 
in  different  localities.  They  knew  that  the  laws  and  regulations  which  would  suit  the 
granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire  would  be  unsuited  to  the  rice  plantations  of  South 
Carolina,  and  they,  therefore,  provided  that  each  State  should  retain  its  own  Legisla- 
ture and  its  own  sovereignty,  with  the  full  and  complete  power  to  do  as  il  pleased 
within  its  own  limits,  in  all  that  was  local  and  riot  national.  One  of  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  States,  was  the  right  to  regulate  the  relations  between  Master  and 
Servant,  on  the  slavery  question.  At  the  time  the  Constitution  was  framed,  there 
were  thirteen  States  in  the  Union,  twelve  of  which  were  slaveholding  States  and  one 
a  free  State.  Suppose  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  preached  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  the 
States  should  all  be  free  or  all  be  slave  had  prevailed,  and  what  would  have  been  the 
result?  Of  course,  the  twelve  slaveholding  States  would  have  overruled  the.  one 
free  State,  and  slavery  would  have  been  fastened  by  a  Constitutional  provision  on 
every  inch  or'  the  American  Republic,  instead  of  being  left  as  our  fathers  wisely  left 
it,  to  each  State  to  decide  for  itself.  Here  I  assert  that  uniformity  in  the  local  laws 


71 

and  institutions  of  the  different  States  is  neither  possible  or  desirable.  If  uniformity 
had  been  adopted  when  the  Government  was  established,  it  must  inevitably  have 
been  the  uniformity  of  slavery  everywhere,  or  else  the  uniformity  of  negro  citizen- 
ship and  negro  equality  everywhere. 

\\Ve  are  told  by  Lincoln  that  he  is  utterly  opposed  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and 
will  not  submit  to  it,  for  the  reason  that  he  says  it  deprives  the  negro  of  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  citizenship.  That  is  the  first  and  main  reason  which  he  assigns  for 
hiS  warfare  on  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  and  its  decision.  \I  ask  you,' 
are  }ou  in  favor  of  conferring  upon  the  negro  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship? 
Do  you  desire  to  strike  out  of  our  State  Constitution  that  clause  which  keeps  slaves 
and  free  negroes  out  of  the  State,  and  allow  the  free  negroes  to  flow  in,  and  cover 
your  prairies  with  black  settlements?  Do  you  desire  to  turn  this  beautiful  Suite 
into  a  free  negro  colony,  in  order  that  when  Missouri  abolishes  slavery  she  can  send 
one  hundred  thousand  emancipated  slaves  into  Illinois,  to  become  citizens  and  voters, 
on  an  equality  with  yourselves?  If  you  desire  negro  citizenship,  if  you  desire  to 
allow  them  to  come  into  the  State  and  settle  with  the  white  man,  if  you  desire  them 
to  vote  on  an  equality  with  yourselves,  and  to  make'them  eligible  to  office,  to  serve 
on  juries,  and  to  adjudge  your  rights,  then  support  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Black  Repub- 
lic an  party,  who  are  in  favor  of  the  citizenship  of  the  negro.  For  one,  I  am  opposed 
to  negro  citizenship  in  any  and  every  form.  I  believe  this  Government  was  made  on 
the  wiiite  basis.  I  believe  it  was  made  by  white  men,  for  the  benefit  of  white  men 
and  their  posterity  for  ever,  and  I  am  in  favor  of  confining  citizenship  to  white  men, 
men  of  European  birth  and  descent,  instead  of  conferring  it  upon  negroes,  Indians, 
and  other  inferior  races. 

Mr.  Lincoln,  following  the  example  and  lead  of  all  the  little  Abolition  orators,  who 
go  around  and  lecture  in  the  basements  of  schools  and  churches,  reads  from  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  that  all  men  were  created  equal,  and  then  asks,  how 
can  you  deprive  a  negro  of  that  equality  which  God  and  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence awards  to  him?  He  and  they  maintain  that  negro  equality  is  guarantied 
by  the  laws  of  God,  and  that  it  is  asserted  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  If 
they  think  so,  of  course  they  have  a  right  to  say  so,  and  so  vote.  I  do  not  question 
Mr.  Lincoln's  conscientious  belief  that  the  negro  was  made  his  equal,  and  hence  is 
his  brother ;  but  for  my  own  part,  I  do  not  regard  the  negro  as  my  equal,  and  posi- 
tively deny  that  he  is  my  brother  or  any  kin  to  me  whatever.  Lincoln  has  evidently 
learned  by  heart  Parson  Lovejoy's  catechism.  He  can  repeat  it  as  well  as  Farns- 
worth,  and  he  is  worthy  of  a  medal  from  Father  Giddings  and  Fred  Douglass  for  his 
Abolitionism.  He  holds  that  the  negro  was  born  his  equal  and  yours,  and  that  he 
was  endowed  with  equality  by  the  Almighty,  and  that  no  human  law  can  deprive 
him  of  these  rights  which  were  guarantied  to  him  by  the  Supreme  ruler  of  the  Uni- 
verse. Now,  1  do  not  believe  that  the  Almighty  ever  intended  the  negro  to  be  the 
equal  of  the  white  man.  If  he  did,  he  has  been  a  long  time  demonstrating  the  fact. 
For  thousands  of  years  the  negro  has  been  a  race  upon  the  earth,  and  during  all  that 
time,  in  all  latitudes  and  climates,  wherever  he  has  wandered  or  been  taken,  he  has 
been  inferior  to  the  race  which  he  has  there  met.  He  belongs  to  an  inferior  race, 
»nd  must  always  occupy  an  inferior  position.  I  do  not  hold  that  because  the  negro 
is  oar  inferior  that  therefore  he  ought  to  be  a  slave.  By  no  means  can  such  a  con- 
clusion be  drawn  from  what  I  have  said.  On  the  contrary,  I  hold  that  humanity 
and  Christianity  both  require  that  the  negro  shall  have  and  enjoy  every  right,  every 
privilege,  and  every  immunity  consistent  with  the  safety  of  the  society  in  which  he 
lives.  On  that  point,  I  presume,  there  can  be  no  diversity  of  opinion.  You  and  I 
are  bound  to  extend  to  our  inferior  and  dependent  beings  every  right,  every  privilege, 
every  facility  and  immunity  consistent  with  the  public  good.  The  question  then 
arises,  what  rights  and  privileges  are  consistent  with  the  public  good  ?  This  is  a 
question  which  each  State  and  each  Territory  must  decide  for  itself — Illinois  has 
decided  it  for  herself.  We  have  provided  that  the  negro  shall  not  be  a  slave,  and 
we  hare  also  provided  that  he  shall  not  be  a  citizen,  but  protect  him  in  his  civil 


72 

rights,  in  his  life,  his  person  and  his  property,  only  depriving  him  of  all  political 
rights  whatsoever,  and  refusing  to  put  him  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  That 
policy  of  Illinois  is  satisfactory  to  the  Democratic  party  and  to  me,  and  if  it  were  to 
the  Republicans,  there  would  then  be  no  question  upon  the  subject ;  but  the  Repub- 
licans say  that  he  ought  to  be  made  a  citizen,  and  when  he  becomes  a  citizen  he 
becomes  your  equal,  with  all  your  rights  and  privileges.  They  assert  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  to  be  monstrous  because  it  denies  that  the  negro  is  or  can  be  a  citizen 
under  the  Constitution.  Now,  I  hold  that  Illinois  had  a  right  to  abolish  and  pro- 
hibit slavery  as  she  did,  and  I  hold  that  Kentucky  has  the  same  right  to  continue  arid 
protect  slavery  that  Illinois  had  to  abolish  it.  I  hold  that  New  York  had  as  much 
right  to  abolish  slavery  as  Virginia  has  to  continue  it,  and  that  each  and  every  State 
of  this  Union  is  a  sovereign  power,  with  the  right  to  do  as  it  pleases  upon  this  ques- 
tion of  slavery,  and  upon  all  its  domestic  institutions.  Slavery  is  not  the  only  ques- 
tion which  comes  up  in  this  controversy.  There  is  a  far  mor°  important  one  to  you, 
and  that  is,  what  shall  be  done  with  the  free  negro  ?  We  have  settled  the  slavery 
question  as  far  as  we  are  concerned  ;  we  have  prohibited  it  in  Illinois  forever,  and  in 
doing  so,  I  think  we  have  done  wisely,  and  there  is  no  man  in  the  State  who  would 
be  more  strenuous  in  his  opposition  to  the  introduction  of  slavery  than  I  would ;  but 
when  we  settled  it  for  ourselves,  we  exhausted  all  our  power  over  that  subject.  We 
have  done  our  whole  duty,  and  can  do  no  more.  We  must  leave  each  and  every 
other  State  to  decide  for  itself  the  same  question.  In  relation  to  the  policy  to  be 
pursued  toward  the  free  negroes,  we  have  said  that  they  shall  not  vote ;  whilst 
Maine,  on  the  other  hand,  has  said  that  they  shall  vote.  Maine  is  a  sovereign  State, 
and  has  the  power  to  regulate  the  qualifications  of  voters  within  her  limits.  I  would 
never  consent  to  confer  the  right  of  voting  and  of  citizenship  upon  a  negro,  but  still 
I  am  not  going  to  quarrel  with  Maine  for  differing  from  me  in  opinion.  Let  Maine 
take  care  of  her  own  negroes  and  fix  the  qualifications  of  her  own  voters  to  suit  her- 
self, without  interfering  with  Illinois,  and  Illinois  will  not  interfere  with  Maine.  So 
with  the  State  of  New  York.  She  allows  the  negro  to  vote  provided  he  owns  two 
hundred  and  fifty  dollars'  worth  of  property,  but  not  otherwise.  While  I  would  not. 
make  any  distinction  whatever  between  a  negro  who  held  property  and  one  who  did 
not ;  yet  if  the  sovereign  State  of  New  ^igrk  chooses  to  make  that  distinction  it  is 
her  business  and  not  mine,  and  I  will  not  quarrel  with  her  for  it.  She  can  do  as  she 
pleases  on  this  question  if  she  minds  her  own  business,  and  we  will  do  the  same  thing. 
Now,  my  friends,  if  we  will  only  act  conscientiously  and  rigidly  upon  this  great  prin- 
ciple of  popular  sovereignty,  which  guaranties  to  each  State  and  Territory  the  right 
to  do  as  it  pleases  on  all  things,  local  and  domestic,  instead  of  Congress  interfering, 
we  will  continue  at  peace  one  with  another.  Why  should  Illinois  be  at  war  with 
Missouri,  or  Kentucky  with  Ohio,  or  Virginia  with  New  York,  merely  because  their 
institutions  differ?  Our  fathers  intended  that  our  institutions  should  differ.  They 
knew  that  the  North  and  the  South,  having  different  climates,  productions  and 
interests,  required  different  institutions.  This  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  of  uniformity 
among  the  institutions  of  the  different  States,  is  a  new  doctrine,  never  dreamed  of  by 
Washington,  Madison,  or  the  framers  of  this  Government.  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the 
Republican  party  set  themselves  up  as  wiser  than  these  men  who  made  this  Govern 
ment,  which  has  flourished  for  seventy  years  under  the  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty,  recognizing  the  right  of  each  State  to  do  as  it  pleased.  Under  that 
principle,  we  have  grown  from  a  nation  of  three  or  four  millions  to  a  nation  of  about 
thirty  millions  of  people ;  we  have  crossed  the  Allegheny  mountains  and  filled  up  the 
whole  North-west,  turning  the  prairie  into  a  garden,  and  building  up  churches  and 
schools,  thus  spreading  civilization  and  Christianity  where  before  there  was  nothing 
but  savage  barbarism.  Under  that  principle  we  have  become,  from  a  feeble  nation, 
the  most  powerful  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  if  we  only  adhere  to  that  principle, 
we  can  go  forward  increasing  in  territory,  in  power,  in  strength  and  in  glory  until  the 
Republic  of  America  shall  be  the  North  Star  that  shall  guide  the  friends  of  freedom 
throughout  the  civilized  world.  And  why  can  we  not  adhere  to  the  great  principle 


73 

of  self-government,  upon  which  our  institutions  were  originally  based?  I  believe  that 
this  new  doctrine  preached  by  Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  party  will  dissolve  the  Union  if 
it  succeeds.  They  are  trying  to  array  all  the  Northern  States  in  one  body  against 
the  South,  to  excite  a  sectional  war  between  the  free  States  and  the  slave  States,  in 
order  that  the  one  or  the  other  may  be  driven  t«  the  wall. 

I  am  told  that  my  time  is  out.     Mr.  Lincoln  will  now  address  you  for  an  hour 
and  a  half,  and  I  will  then  occupy  an  half  hour  in  replying  to  him. 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  REPLY. 

Mr  FELLOW-CITIZENS  :  When  a  man  hears  himself  somewhat  misrepresented, 
it  provokes  him — at  least,  I  find  it  so  with  myself;  but  when  misrepresentation  be- 
comes very  gross  and  palpable,  it  is  more  apt  to  amuse  him.  The  first  thing  I  see 
fit  to  notice,  is  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas  alleges,  after  running  through  the  history 
of  the  old  Democratic  and  the  old  Whig  parties,  that  Judge  Trumbull  and  myself 
made  an  arrangement  in  1854,  by  which  I  was  to  have  the  place  of  Gen.  Shields  in 
the  United  States  Senate,  and  Judge  Trumbull  was  to  have  the  place  of  Judge 
Douglas.  Now,  all  I  have  to  say  upon  that  subject  is,  that  I  think  no  man — not 
even  Judge  Douglas — can  prove  it,  because  it  is  not  true.  I  have  no  doubt  he  is 
"  conscientious  "  in  saying  it.  As  to  those  resolutions  that  he  took  such  a  length  of 
time  to  read,  as  being  the  platform  of  the  Republican  party  in  1854,  I  say  I  never 
had  anything  to  do  with  them,  and  I  think  Trumbull  never  had.  Judge  Douglas 
cannot  show  that  either  of  us  ever  did  have  anything  to  do  with  them.  I  believe 
this  is  true  about  those  resolutions :  There  was  a  call  for  a  Convention  to  form  a 
Republican  party  at  Springfield,  and  I  think  that  my  friend,  Mr.  Lovejoy,  who  is 
here  upon  this  stand,  had  a  hand  in  it  I  think  this  is  true,  and  I  think  if  he  will 
remember  accurately,  he  will  be  able  to  recollect  that  he  tried  to  get  me  into  it,  and 
I  would  not  go  in.  I  believe  it  is  also  true  that  I  went  away  from  Springfield  when 
the  Convention  was  in  session,  to  attend  court  in  Tazewell  county.  It  is  true  they 
did  place  my  name,  though  without  authority,  upon  the  committee,  and  afterward 
wrote  me  to  attend  the  meeting  of  the  committee,  but  I  refused  to  do  so,  and  I  never 
had  anything  to  do  with  that  organization.  This  is  the  plain  truth  about  all  that 
matter  of  the  resolutions. 

Now,  about  this  story  that  Judge  Douglas  tells  of  Trumbull  bargaining  to  sell  out 
the  old  Democratic  party,  and  Lincoln  agreeing  to  sell  out  the  old  Whig  party,  I 
have  the  means  of  knowing  about  that ;  Judge  Douglas  cannot  have ;  and  I  know 
there  is  no  substance  to  it  whatever.  Yet  I  have  no  doubt  he  is  "  conscientious  " 
about  it.  I  know  that  after  Mr.  Lovejoy  got  into  the  Legislature  that  winter,  he 
complained  of  me  that  I  had  told  all  the  old  Whigs  of  Ms  district  that  the  old  Whig 
party  was  good  enough  for  them,  and  some  of  them  voted  against  him  because  I  told 
them  so.  Now,  I  have  no  means  of  totally  disproving  such  charges  as  this  which 
the  Judge  makes.  A  man  cannot  prove  a  negative,  but  he  has  a  right  to  claim  that 
when  a  man  makes  an  affirmative  charge,  he  must  offer  some  proof  to  show  the 
truth  of  what  he  says.  I  certainly  cannot  introduce  testimony  to  show  the  negative 
about  things,  but  I  have  a  right  to  claim  that  if  a  man  says  he  knows  a  thing,  then 
he  must  show  how  he  knows  it.  I  always  have  a  right  to  claim  this,  and  it  is  not 
satisfactory  to  me  that  he  may  be  "  conscientious  "  on  the  subject. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  hate  to  waste  my  time  on  such  things,  but  in  regard  to  that 
general  Abolition  tilt  that  Judge  Douglas  makes,  when  he  says  that  I  was  engaged 
at  that  time  in  selling  out  and  abolitionizing  the  old  Whig  party — I  hope  you 
will  permit  me  to  read  a  part  of  a  printed  speech  that  I  made  then  at  Peoria, 
which  will  show  altogether  a  different  view  of  the  position  I  took  in  that  contest 
of  1854. 

Voice — <;  Put  on  your  specs." 


74 

Mr.  Lincoln — Yes,  sir,  I  am  obliged  to  do  so.     I  am  no  longer  a  young  man. 

"  This  is  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.*  The  foregoing  history  may 
not  be  precisely  accurate  in  every  particular;  but  I  am  sure  it  is  sufficiently  so  for 
all  the  uses  I  shall  attempt  to  make  of  it,  and  in  it  we  have  before  us,  the  chief  ma- 
teiials  enabling  us  to  correctly  judge  whether  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
is  right  or  .wrong. 

"  I  think,  and  shall  try  to  show,  that  it  is  wrong ;  wrong  in  its  direct  effect,  letting 
slavery  into  Kansas  and  Nebraska — and  wrong  in  its  prospective  principle,  allowing 
it  to  spread  to  every  other  part  of  the  wide  world,  where  men  can  be  found  inclined 
to  take  it. 

'•  This  declared  indifference,  but,  as  I  must  think,  covert  real  zeal  for  the  spread 
of  slavery,  I  cannot  but  hate.  I  hate  it  because  of  the  monstrous  injustice  of  sla- 
very itself.  I  hate  it  because  it  deprives  our  republican  example  of  its  just  influence 
iii  the  world — enables  the  enemies  of  free  institutions,  with  plausibility,  to  taunt  us 
.as  hypocrites — causes  the  real  friends  of  freedom  to  doubt  our  sincerity,  and  espe- 
cially because  it  forces  so  many  really  good  men  amongst  ourselves  into  an  c^pen  war 
with  the  very  fundamental  principles  of  civil  liberty — criticising  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  insisting  that  there  is  no  right  principle  of  action  but  self- 
interest. 

"  Before  proceeding,  let  me  say  I  think  I  have  no  prejudice  against  the  Southern 
people.  They  are  just  what  we  would  be  in  their  situation.  If  slavery  did  not 
now  exist  among  them,  they  would  not  introduce  it.  If  it  did  now  exist  amongst  us, 
we  should  not  instantly  give  it  up.  This  I  believe  of  the  masses  North  and  South. 
Doubtless  there  are  individuals  on  both  sides,  who  would  not  hold  slaves  under  any 
circumstances ;  and  others  who  would  gladly  introduce  slavery  anew,  if  it  were  out 
of  existence.  We  know  that  some  Southern  men  do  free  their  slaves,  go  North,  and 
become  tip-top  Abolitionists ;  while  some  Northern  ones  go  South,  and  become  most 
cruel  slave-masters. 

"  When  Southern  people  tell  us  they  are  no  more  responsible  for  the  origin  of 
slavery  than  we,  I  acknowledge  the  fact.  When  it  is  said  that  the  institution  exists, 
and  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  get  rid  of  it,  in  any  satisfactory  way,  I  can  understand 
and  appreciate  the  saying.  I  surely  will  not  blame  them  for  not  doing  what  I  should 
not  know  how  to  do  myself.  If  all  earthly  power  were  given  me,  I  should  not 
know  what  to  do,  as  to  the  existing  institution.  My  first  impulse  would  be  to  free 
all  the  slaves,  and  send  them  to  Liberia — to  their  own  native  land.  But  a  moment's 
reflection  would  convince  me,  that  whatever  of  high  hope  (as  I  think  there  is)  there 
may  be  in  this,  in  the  long  run,  its  sudden  execution  is  impossible.  If  they  were  all 
landed  there  in  a  day,  they  would  all  perish  in  the  next  ten  days ;  and  there  are  not 
surplus  shipping  and  surplus  money  enough  in  the  world  to  carry  them  there  in 
many  times  ten  days.  What  then  ?  Free  them  all,  and  keep  them  among  us  us 
underlings  ?  Is  it  quite  certain  that  this  betters  their  condition  ?  I  think  1  would 
not  hold  one  in  slavery  at  any  rate ;  yet  the  point  is  not  clear  enough  to  me  to  de- 
nounce people  upon.  What  next?  Free  them,  and  make  them  politically  and 
socially  our  equals  ?  My  own  feelings  will  not  admit  of  this ;  and  if  mine  would, 
we  well  know  that  those  of  the  great  mass  of  white  people  will  not.  Whether  this 
feeling  accords  with  justice  and  sound  judgment,  is  not  the  sole  question,  if,  indeed, 
it  is  any  part  of  it.  A  universal  feeling,  whether  well  or  ill-founded,  cannot  be 
safely  disregarded.  We  cannot,  then,  make  them  equals.  It  does  seem  to  me  that 
systems  of  gradual  emancipation  might  be  adopted ;  but  for  their  tardiness  in  this, 
I  will  not  undertake  to  judge  our  brethren  of  the  South. 

"  When  they  remind  us  of  their  constitutional  rights,  I  acknowledge  them,  not 
grudgingly,  but  fully  and  fairly ;  and  I  would  give  them  any  legislation  for  the  re- 
claiming of  their  fugitives,  which  should  not,  in  its  stringency,  be  more  likely 

*This  extract  from  Mr.  Lincoln's  Peoria  speech  of  1854,  was  read  by  him  in  the  Ottawa  debate,  but  was  not 
reported  fully  or  accurately  in  either  the  Times  or  Press  and  Tribune.  It  is  inserted  now  as  necessary  to  a  com- 
plete report  of  the  debate. 


75 

to  carry  a  free  man  into  slavery,  than  our  ordinary  criminal  laws  are  to  hang  an 
innocent  one. 

**  But  all  this,  to  my  judgment,  furnishes  no  more  excuse  for  permitting  slavery  to 
go  into  our  own  free  territory,  than  it  would  for  reviving  the  African  slave-trade  hy 
law.  The  law  which  forbids  the  bringing  of  slaves  from  Africa,  and  that  which  has 
BO  long  forbid  the  taking  of  them  to  Nebraska,  can  hardly  be  distinguished  on  any 
moral  principle ;  and  the  repeal  of  the  former  could  find  quite  as  plausible  excuses 
as  that  of  the  latter." 

I  have  reason  to  know  that  Judge  Douglas  knows  that  I  said  this.  I  think  he  has 
the  answer  here,  to  one  of  the  questions  he  put  to  me.  I  do  not  mean  to  allow  him 
to  catechise  me  unless  he  pays  back  for  it  in  kind.  I  will  not  answer  questions  one 
after  another,  unless  he  reciprocates ;  but  as  he  has  made  this  inquiry,  and  I  have 
answered  it  before,  he  has  got  it  without  my  getting  anything  in  return.  He  has  got 
my  answer  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any  greater  length,  but  this  is  the  true  com- 
plexion of  all  I  have  ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  and  the  black  i  ace. 
This  is  the  whole  of  it,  and  anything  that  argues  me  into  his  idea  of  perfect  social  and 
political  equality  with  the  negro,  is. but  a  specious  and  fantastic  arrangement  of  words, 
by  which  a  man  can  prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut  horse.  I  will  say  here, 
while  upon  this  subject,  that  I  have  no  purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere 
with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I  have  no 
lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so.  I  have  no  purpose  to  in- 
troduce political  and  social  equality  between  the  white  and  the  black  races.  There 
is  a  physical  difference  between  the  two,  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably  fpr- 
ever  forbid  their  living  together  upon  the  footing  of  perfect  equality,  and  inasmuch 
as  it  becomes  a  necessity  that  there  must  be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge  Doug- 
las, am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which  I  belong  having  the  superior  position.  I  have 
never  said  anything  to  the  contrary,  but  I  hold  that,  notwithstanding  all  this,  there  is 
no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  negro  is  not  entitled  to  all  the  natural  rights  enu- 
merated in  the  Decimation  of  Independence,  the  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness.  I  hold  that  he  is  as  much  entitled  to  these  as  the  white  man.  I  agree 
with  Judge  Douglas  he  is  not  my  equal  in  many  respects — certainly  not  in  color, 
perhaps  not  in  moral  or  intellectual  endowment.  But  in  the  right  to  eat  the  bread, 
without  the  leave  of  anybody  else,  which  his  own  hand  earns,  he  is  my  equal  and 
the  equal  of  Judge  Douglas,  and  the  equal  of  every  living  man. 

Now  I  pass  on  to  consider  one  or  two  more  of  these  little  follies.  The  Judge  is 
'Arofully  at  fault  ohout  his  early  friend  Lincoln  being  a  "  grocery-keeper."  I  don't 
know  as  it  would  be  a  great  sin,  if  I  had  been  ;  but  he  is  mistaken.  Lincoln  never 
kept  a  grocery  anywhere  in  the  world.  It  is  true  that  Lincoln  did  work  the  latter 
part  of  one  winter  in  a  little  still-house,  up  at  the  head  of  a  hollow.  And  so  I  think 
my  friend,  the  Judge,  is  equally  at  fault  when  he  charges  me  at  the  time  when  I 
uras  in  Congress  of  having  opposed  our  soldiers  who  were  fighting  in  the  Mexican 
*rar.  The  Judge  did  not  make  his  charge  very  distinctly,  but  I  can  tell  you  what 
*e  can  prove,  by  referring  to  the  record.  You  remember  I  was  an  old  Whig,  and 
whenever  the  Democratic  party  tried  to  get  me  to  vote  that  the  war  had  been  right- 
eously begun  by  the  President,  I  would  not  do  it.  But  whenever  they  asked  for  any 
aioney,  or  land-warrants,  or  anything  to  pay  the  soldiers  there,  during  all  that  time, 
I  gave  the  same  vote  that  Judge  Douglas  did.  You  can  think  as  you  please  as  to 
whether  that  was  consistent.  Such  is  the  truth ;  and  the  Judge  has  the  right  to 
make  all  he  can  out  of  it.  But  when  he,  by  a  general  charge,  conveys  the  idea  that 
I  withheld  supplies  from  the  soldiers  who  were  fighting  in  the  Mexican  war,  or  did 
anything  else  to  hinder  the  soldiers,  he  is,  to  say  the  least,  grossly  and  altogether 
mistaken,  as  a  consultation  of  the  records  will  prove  to  him. 

As  I  have  not  used  up  so  much  of  my  time  as  I  had  supposed,  I  will  dwell,  a 
little  longer  upon  one  or  two  of  these  minor  topics  upon  which  the  Judge  has  spoken. 
He  has  read  from  my  speech  in  Springfield,  in  which  I  say  that  "  a  house  divided 


76 

against  itself  cannot  stand."  Does  the  Judge  say  it  can  stand?  I  don't  know 
whether  he  does  or  not.  The  Judge  does  not  seem  to  be  attending  to  me  just  now, 
but  I  would  like  to  know  if  it  is  his  opinion  that  a  house  divided  against  itself  can 
stand.  If  he  does,  then  there  is  a  question  of  veracity,  not  between  him  and  me, 
but  between  the  Judge  and  an  authority  of  a  somewhat  higher  character. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  ask  your  attention  to  this  matter  for  the  purpose  of  saying 
something  seriously.  I  know  that  the  Judge  may  readily  enough  agree  with,  me 
that  the  maxim  which  was  put  forth  by  the  Saviour  is  true,  but  he  may  allege  that 
I  misapj >ly  it ;  and  the  Judge  has  a  right  to  urge  that,  in  my  application,  I  do  mis- 
apply it,  and  then  I  have  a  right  to  show  that  I  do  not  misapply  it.  When  he  under- 
takes to  say  that  because  I  think  this  nation,  so  far  as  the  question  of  slavery  is 
concerned,  will  all  become  one  thing  or  all  the  other,  1  am  in  favor  of  bringing  about 
a  dead  uniformity  in  the  various  States,  in  all  their  institutions,  he  argues  errone- 
ously. The  great  variety  of  the  local  institutions  in  the  States,  springing  from  dif- 
ferences in  the  soil,  differences  in  the  face  of  the  country,  and  in  the  climate,  are 
bonds  of  Union.  They  do  not  make  "  a  house  divided  against  itself,"  but  they  make 
a  house  united.  If  they  produce  in  one  section  of  the  country  what  is  called  for  by 
the  wants  of  another  section,  and  this  other  section  can  supply  the  wants  of  the  first, 
they  are  not  matters  of  discord  but  bonds  of  union,  true  bonds  of  union.  But  can 
this  question  of  slavery  be  considered  as  among  these  varieties  in  the  institutions  of 
the  country  ?  I  leave  it  to  you  to  say  whether,  in  the  history  of  our  Government, 
this  institution  of  slavery  has  not  always  failed  to  be  a  bond  of  union,  and,  on  the 
contrary,  been  an  apple  of  discord,  and  an  element  of  division  in  the  house.  I  ask 
you  to  consider  whether,  so  long  as  the  moral  constitution  of  men's  minds  shall  con- 
tinue to  be  the  same,  after  this  generation  and  assemblage  shall  sink  into  the  grave, 
and  another  race  shall  arise,  with  the  same  moral  and  intellectual  development  we 
have — whether,  if  that  institution  is  standing  in  the  same  irritating  position  in  which 
it  now  is,  it  will  not  continue  an  element  of  division  ?  If  so,  then  I  have  a  right  to 
say  that,  in  regard  to  this  question,  the  Union  is  a  house  divided  against  itself;  and 
when  the  Judge  reminds  me  that  I  have  often  said  to  him  that  the  institution  of 
slavery  has  existed  for  eighty  years  in  some  States,  and  yet  it  does  not  exist  in  some 
others,  I  agree  to  the  fact,  arid  I  account  for  it  by  looking  at  the  position  in  which 
our  fathers  originally  placed  it — restricting  it  from  the  new  Territories  where  it  had 
not  gone,  and  legislating  to  cut  off  its  source  by  the  abrogation  of  the  slave-trade 
thus  putting  the  seal  of  legislation  against  its  spread.  The  public  mind  did  rest  in 
the  belief  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  But  lately,  I  think — and 
in  this  I  charge  nothing  on  the  Judge's  motives — lately,  I  think,  that  he,  and  those 
acting  with  him,  have  p]» '?d  that  institution  on  a  new  basis,  which  looks  to  the  per- 
petuity and  nationalization  of  slavery.  And  while  it  is  placed  upon  this  new  basis, 
I  say,  and  I  have  said,  that  I  believe  we  shall  not  have  peace  upon  the  question 
until  the  opponents  of  slavery  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the 
public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction ;  or, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South.  Now,  I  believe 
if  we  could  arrest  the  spread,  and  place  it  where  Washington,  and  Jefferson,  and 
Madison  placed  it,  it  would  be  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  and  the  public 
mind  would,  as  for  eighty  years  past,  believe  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate 
extinction.  The  crisis  would  be  past  and  the  institution  might  be  let  alone  for  a 
hundred  years,  if  it  should  live  so  long,  in  the  States  where  it  exists,  yet  it 
would  be  going  out  of  existence  in  the  way  best  for  both  the  black  and  the  white 
races. 

A  Voice — "  Then  do  you  repudiate  Popular  Sovereignty  ?  " 

Mr.  Lincoln — Well,  then,  let  us  talk  about  Popular  Sovereignty  !  What  is  Pop- 
ular Sovereignty  ?  Is  it  the  right  of  the  people  to  have  slavery  or  not  have  it, 
as  they  see  fit,  in  the  Territories  ?  I  will  state — and  I  have  an  able  man  to  walch 
me — my  understanding  is  that  Popular  Sovereignty,  as  now  applied  to  the  quest/ on 


77 

of  slavery,  does  allow  the  people  of  a  Territory  to  have  slavery  if  they  want  to,  but 
docs  not  allow  them  not  to  have  it  if  they  do  not  want  it.  I  do  not  mean  that  if 
this  vast  concourse  of  people  were  in  a  Territory  of  the  United  States,  any  one  of 
them  would  be  obliged  to  have  a  slave  if  he  did  not  want  one ;  but  I  do  say  that,  as 
I  understand  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  if  any  one  man  wants  slaves,  all  the,  rest  have 
uo  way  of  keeping  that  one  man  from  holding  them. 

When  I  made  my  speech  at  Springfield,  of  which  the  Judge  complains,  and  from 
which  he  quotes,  I  really  was  not  thinking  of  the  things  which  he  ascribes  to  me  at 
all.  1  had  no  thought  in  the  world  that  I  was  doing  anything  to  bring  about  a  war 
between  the  free  and  slave  States.  I  had  no  thought  in  the  world  that  I  was  doing 
anything  to  bring  about  a  political  and  social  equality  of  the  black  and  white  race.s, 
It  never  occurred  to  me  that  I  was  doing  anything  or  favoring  anything  to  reduce  to 
a  dead  uniformity  all  the  local  institutions  of  the  various  States.  But  I  must  say, 
in  all  fairness  to  him,  if  he  thinks  1  am  doing  something  which  leads  to  these  bad 
results,  it  is  none  the  better  that  I  did  not  mean  it.  It  is  just  as  fatal  to  the  country, 
if  I  have  any  influence  in  producing  it,  whether  I  intend  it  or  not.  But  can  it  be 
true,  that  placing  this  institution  upon  the  original  basis — the  basis  upon  which  our 
fathers  placed  it — can  have  any  tendency  to  set  the  Northern  and  the  Southern 
States  at  war  with  one  another,  or  that  it  can  have  any  tendency  to  make  the  people 
of  Vermont  raise  sugar-cane,  because  they  raise  it  in  Louisiana,  or  that  it  can  com- 
pel the  people  of  Illinois  to  cut  pine  logs  on  the  Grand  Prairie,  where  they  will  not 
grow,  because  they  cut  pine  logs  in  Maine,  where  they  do  grow  ?  The  Judge  says 
this  is  a  new  principle  started  in  regard  to  this  question.  Does  the  Judge  claim  that 
he  is  working  on  the  plan  of  the  founders  of  Government  ?  I  think  he  says  in  some 
of  his  speeches — indeed,  I  have  one  here  now — that  he  saw  evidence  of  a  policy  to 
allow  slavery  to  be  south  of  a  certain  line,  while  north  of  it  it  should  be  excluded, 
and  he  saw  an  indisposition  on  the  part  of  the  country  to  stand  upon  that  policy,  and 
therefore  he  set  about  studying  the  subject  upon  original  principles,  and  upon  orig- 
inal principles  he  got  up  the  Nebraska  bill !  I  am  fighting  it  upon  these  "  orig- 
inal principles" — lighting  it  in  the  Jeffcrsonian,  Washingtonian,  and  Madisonian 
fashion. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  wish  you  to  attend  for  a  little  while  to  one  or  two  other  things 
in  that  Springfield  speech.  My  main  object  was  to  show,  so  far  as  my  humble  abil- 
ity was  capable  of  showing  to  the  people  of  this  country,  what  I  believed  was  the 
truth — that  there  was  a  tendency,  if  not  a  conspiracy  among  those  who  have  engi- 
neered this  slavery  question  for  the  last  four  or  five  years,  to  make  slavery  perpetual 
and  universal  in  this  nation.  Having  made  that  speech  principally  for  that  object, 
after  arranging  the  evidences  that  I  thought  tended  to  prove  my  proposition,  I  con- 
cluded with  this  bit  of  comment : 

"We  cannot  absolutely  know  that  these  exact  adaptations  are  the  result  of  pre- 
concert, but  when  we  see  a  lot  of  framed  timbers,  different  portions  of  which  we 
know  have  been  gotten  out  at  different  times  and  places,  and  by  different  workmen — 
Stephen,  Franklin,  Roger  and  James,  for  instance — and  when  we  see  these  timbers 
joined  together,  and  see  they  exactly  make  the  frame  of  a  house  or  a  mill,  all  the 
tenons  and  mortices  exactly  fitting,  and  all  the  lengths  and  proportions  of  the  different 
pieces  exactly  adapted  to  their  respective  places,  and  not  a  piece  too  many  or  too 
few — not  omitting  even  the  scaffolding — or  if  a  single  piece  be  lacking,  we  see  the 
place  in  the  frame  exactly  fitted  and  prepared  yet  to  bring  such  piece  in — in  such  a 
case  we  feel  it  impossible  not  to  believe  that  Stephen  and  Franklin,  and  Roger  and 
James,  all  understood  one  another  from  the  beginning,  and  all  worked  upon  a  common 
plan  or  draft  drawn  before  the  first  blow  was  struck." 

When  my  friend,  Judge  Douglas,  came  to  Chicago,  on  the  9th  of  July,  this  speech 
having  been  delivered  on  the  16th  of  June,  he  made  an  harangue  there,  in  which  he 
took  hold  of  this  speech  of  mine,  showing  that  he  had  carefully  read  it ;  and  while 
he  paid  no  attention  to  this  matter  at  all,  but  complimented  me  as  being  a  "  kind, 
amiable  and  intelligent  gentleman,"  notwithstanding  I  had  said  this,  he  goes  on  and 
6 


78 

eliminates,  or  draws  out,  from  my  speech  this  tendency  of  mine  to  set  the  States  at 
war  with  one  another,  to  make  all  the  institutions  uniform,  and  set  the  niggers  and 
white  people  to  marrying  together.  Then,  as  the  Judge  had  complimented  me  with 
these  pleasant  titles  (I  must  confess  to  my  weakness),  I  was  a  little  "  taken,"  for  it 
came  from  a  great  man.  I  was  not  very  much  accustomed  to  flattery,  and  it  came 
the  sweeter  to  me.  I  was  rather  like  the  Hoosier,  with  the  gingerbread,  when  he 
said  he  reckoned  he  loved  it  better  than  any  other  man,  and  got  leas  of  it.  As  the 
Judge  had  so  flattered  me,  I  could  not  make  up  my  mind  that  he  meant  to  deal  un- 
fairly with  me ;  so  I  went  to  work  to  show  him  that  he  misunderstood  the  whota 
scope  of  my  speech,  and  that  I  really  never  intended  to  set  the  people  at  war  with 
one  another.  As  an  illustration,  the  next  time  I  met  him,  which  was  at  Springfield. 
I  used  this  expression,  that  I  claimed  no  right  under  the  Constitution,  nor  had  I  anv 
inclination,  to  enter  into  the  slave  States  and  interfere  with  the  institutions  of  slavery 
He  says  upon  that :  Lincoln  will  not  enter  into  the  slave  States,  but  will  go  to  the 
banks  of  the  Ohio,  on  this  side,  and  shoot  over !  He  runs  on,  step  by  step,  in  the 
horse-chestnut  style  of  argument,  until  in  the  Springfield  speech  he  says,  **  Unless 
he  shall  be  successful  in  firing  his  batteries,  until  he  shall  have  extinguished  slavery 
in  all  the  States,  the  Union  shall  be  dissolved."  Now  I  don't  think  that  was  exactly 
the  way  to  treat  u a  kind,  amiable,  intelligent  gentleman."  I  know  if  I  had  asked  the 
Judge  to  show  when  or  where  it  was  I  had  said  that,  if  I  didn't  succeed  in  firing  into 
the  slave  States  until  slavery  should  be  extinguished,  the  Union  should  be  dissolved, 
he  could  not  have  shown  it.  I  understand  what  he  would  do.  He  would  say,  "  1 
don't  mean  to  quote  from  you,  but  this  was  the  result  of  what  you  say."  But  1  have 
the  right  to  ask,  and  I  do  ask  now,  Did  you  not  put  it  in  such  a  form  that  an  ordi- 
nary reader  or  listener  would  take  it  as  an  expression  from  me  ? 

In  a  speech  at  Springfield,  on  the  night  of  the  17th,  I  thought  I  might  as  well  at- 
tend to  my  own  business  a  little,  and  I  recalled  his  attention  as  well  as  I  could  to  this 
charge  of  conspiracy  to  nationalize  slavery.  I  called  his  attention  to  the  fact  that 
he  had  acknowledged,  in  rny  hearing  twice,  that  he  had  carefully  read  the  speech, 
and,  in  the  language  of  the  lawyers,  as  he  had  twice  read  the  speech,  and  still  had  put 
in  no  plea  or  answer,  I  took  a  default  on  him.  I  insisted  that  I  had  a  right  then  to 
renew  that  charge  of  conspiracy.  Ten  days  afterward  I  met  the  Judge  at  Clinton — 
that  is  to  say,  I  was  on  the  ground,  but  not  in  the  discussion — and  heard  him  make  a 
speech.  Then  he  comes  in  with  his  plea  to  this  charge,  for  the  first  time,  and  his 
plea  when  put  in,  as  well  as  I  can  recollect  it,  amounted  to  this :  that  he  never  had 
any  talk  with  Judge  Taney  or  the  President  of  the  United  States  with  regard  to  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  before  it  was  made.  I  (Lincoln)  ought  to  know  that  the  man 
who  makes  a  charge  without  knowing  it  to  be  true,  falsifies  as  much  as  he  who  know- 
ingly tells  a  falsehood ;  and  lastly,  that  he  would  pronounce  the  whole  thing  a  false- 
hood ;  but  he  would  make  no  personal  application  of  the  charge  of  falsehood,  not 
because  of  any  regard  for  the  "  kind,  amiable,  intelligent  gentleman,"  but  because  of 
his  own  personal  self-respect !  I  have  understood  since  then  (but  [turning  to  Judge 
Douglas]  will  not  hold  the  Judge  to  it  if  he  is  not  willing)  that  he  has  broken 
through  the  "  self-respect,"  and  has  got  to  saying  the  thing  out.  The  Judge  nods  to 
me  that  it  is  so.  It  is  fortunate  for  me  that  I  can  keep  as  good-humored'  as  I  do, 
when  the  Judge  acknowledges  that  he  has  been  trying  to  make  a  question  of  veracity 
with  me.  I  know  the  Judge  is  a  great  man,  while  I  am  only  a  small  man,  but  I  feel 
that  I  have  got  him.  I  demur  to  that  plea.  I  waive  all  objections  that  it  was  not 
filed  till  after  default  was  taken,  and  demur  to  it  upon  the  merits.  What  if  Judge 
Douglas  never  did  talk  with  Chief  Justice  Taney  and  the  President,  before  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  was  made,  does  it  follow  that  he  could  not  have  had  as  perfect  an  un- 
derstanding without  talking  as  with  it  ?  I  am  not  disposed  to  stand  upon  my  legal 
advantage.  I  am  disposed  to  take  his  denial  as  being  like  an  answer  in  chancery, 
that  he  neither  had  any  knowledge,  information  or  belief  in  the  existence  of  such  a 
conspiracy.  I  am. disposed  to  take  his  answer  as  being  as  broad  as  though  he  had 
put  it  in  these  words.  And  now,  I  ask,  even  if  he  had  done  so,  have  not  I  a  right 


79 

to  prove  it  on  him,  and  to  offer  the  evidence  of  more  than  two  witnesses,  by  whom 
to  prove  it ;  and  if  the  evidence  proves  the  existence  of  the  conspiracy,  does  his 
broad  answer  denying  all  knowledge,  information,  or  belief,  disturb  the  fact  ?  It  can 
only  show  that  he  was  used  by  conspirators,  and  was  not  a  leader  of  them. 

Now,  in  regard  to  his  reminding  me  of  the  moral  rule  that  persons  who  tell  what 
they  do  not  know  to  be  true,  falsify  as  much  as  those  who  knowingly  tell  falsehoods. 
I  remember  the  rule,  and  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  what  I  have  read  to  you, 
I  do  not  say  that  I  know  such  a  conspiracy  to  exist.  To  that  I  reply,  /  believe  it. 
If  the  Judge  says  that  I  do  not  believe  it,  then  he  says  what  he  does  not  know,  and 
(alls  within  his  own  rule,  that  he  who  asserts  a  thing  which  he  does  not  know  to  bo 
true,  falsifies  as  much  as  he  who  knowingly  tells  a  falsehood.  I  want  to  call  your 
attention  to  a  little  discussion  on  that  branch  of  the  case,  and  the  evidence  which 
brought  my  mind  to  the  conclusion  which  I  expressed  as  my  belief.  If,  in  arraying 
that  evidence,  I  had  stated  anything  which  was  false  or  erroneous,  it  needed  but  that 
Judge  Douglas  should  point  it  out,  and  I  would  have  taken  it  back  with  all  the  kind 
ness  in  the  world.  I  do  not  deal  in  that  way.  If  I  have  brought  forward  anything 
not  a  fact,  if  he  will  point  it  out,  it  will  not  even  ruffle  me  to  take  it  back.  But  if  h« 
will  not  point  out  anything  erroneous  in  the  evidence,  is  it  not  rather  for  him  to  show, 
by  a  comparison  of  the  evidence,  that  I  have  reasoned  falsely,  than  to  call  the  "kind, 
amiable,  intelligent  gentleman  "  a  liar  ?  If  I  have  reasoned  to  a  false  conclusion,  it 
is  the  vocation  of  an  able  debater  to  show  by  argument  that  I  have  wandered  to  an 
erroneous  conclusion.  I  want  to  ask  your  attention  to  a  portion  of  the  Nebraska 
bill,  which  Judge  Douglas  has  quoted  :  "  It  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
this  act,  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  there- 
from, but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domes- 
tic institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States."  Thereupon  Judge  Douglas  and  others  began  to  argue  in  favor  of  "  Popular 
Sovereignty" — the  right  of  the  people  to  have  slaves  if  they  wanted  them,  and  to 
exclude  slavery  if  they  did  not  want  them.  "  But,"  said,  in  substance,  a  Senator 
from  Ohio  (Mr.  Chase,  I  believe),  "we  more  than  suspect  that  you  do  not  mean  to 
allow  the  people  to  exclude  slavery  if  they  wish  to,  and  if  you  do  mean  it,  accept  an 
amendment  which  I  propose  expressly  authorizing  the  people  to  exclude  slavery." 
I  believe  I  have  the  amendment  here  before  me,  which  was  offered,  and  under  which 
the  people  of  the  Territory,  through  their  proper  representatives,  might,  if  they  saw 
fit,  prohibit  the  existence  of  slavery  therein.  And  now  I  state  it  as  a  fact,  to  be 
taken  back  if  there  is  any  mistake  about  it,  that  Judge  Douglas  and  those  acting 
with  him  voted  that  amendment  down.  I  now  think  that  those  men  who  voted  it 
down,  had  a  real  reason  for  doing  so.  They  know  what  that  reason  was.  It  looks 
to  us,  since  we  have  seen  the  Dred  Scott  decision  pronounced,  holding  that,  "  under 
the  Constitution,"  the  people  cannot  exclude  slavery — I  say  it  looks  to  outsiders,  poor, 
simple,  "  amiable,  intelligent  gentlemen,"  as  though  the  niche  was  left  as  a  place  to 
put  that  Dred  Scott  decision  in — a  niche  which  would  have  been  spoiled  by  adopting 
the  amendment.  And  now,  I  say  again,  if  this  was  not  the  reason,  it  will  avail  the 
Judge  much  more  to  calmly  and  good-humoredly  point  out  to  these  people  what  that 
other  reason  was  for  voting  the  amendment  down,  than,  swelling  himself  up,  to  vo- 
ciferate that  he  may  be  provoked  to  call  somebody  a  liar. 

Again  :  there  is  in  that  same  quotation  from  the  Nebraska  bill  this  clause  —  "It 
being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  bill  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Terri- 
tory or  State"  I  have  always  been  puzzled  to  know  what  business  the  word  "State" 
had  in  that  connection.  Judge  Douglas  knows.  Ht  put  it  there.  He  knows  what 
lie  put  it  there  for.  We  outsiders  cannot  say  what  he  put  it  there  for.  The  law 
they  were  passing  was  not  about  S'P'  »,  and  was  not  making  provisions  for  States. 
What  was  it  placed  there  for  ?  ^:ver  seeing  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  holds 
that  the  people  cannot  exclude  slavery  from  a  Territory,  if  another  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision shall  come,  holding  that  they  cannot  exclude  it  from  a  State,  we  shall  discover 
that  when  the  word  was  originally  put  there,  it  was  in  view  of  something  which  was 


80 

to  come  in  due  time,  we  shall  see  that  it  was  the  other  half  of  something-.  I  now  saj 
again,  if  there  is  any  different  reason  for  putting  it  there,  Judge  Douglas,  in  a  good 
humored  way,  without  ealling  anybody  a  liar,  can  tell  ivhat  the  reason  ivas. 

When  the  Judge  spoke  at  Clinton,  he  came  very  near  making  a  charge  of  false- 
hood against  me.  He  used,  as  I  found  it  printed  in  a  newspaper,  which,  I  remember, 
was  very  nearly  like  the  real  speech,  the  following  language  : 

"I  did  not  answer  the  charge  [of  conspiracy]  before,  for  the  reason  that  I  did  not 
suppose  there  was  a  man  in  America  with  a  heart  so  corrupt  as  to  believe  such  a 
charge  could  be  true.  I  have  too  much  respect  for  Mr.  Lincoln  to  suppose  he  is  se- 
rious in  making  the  charge." 

I  confess  this  is  rather  a  curious  view,  that  out  of  respect  for  me  he  should  con- 
sider I  was  making  what  I  deemed  rather  a  grave  charge  in  fun.  I  confess  it  strikes 
me  rather  strangely.  But  I  let  it  pass.  As  the  Judge  did  not  for  a  moment  believe 
that  there  was  a  man  in  America  whose  heart  was  so  "  corrupt "  as  to  make  such  a 
charge,  and  as  he  places  me  among  the  "men  in  America"  who  have  hearts  base 
enough  to  make  such  a  charge,  I  hope  he  will  excuse  me  if  I  hunt  out  another  charge 
very  like  this ;  and  if  it  should  turn  out  that  in  hunting  I  should  find  that  other,  and 
it  should  turn  out  to  be  Judge  Douglas  himself  who  made  it,  I  hope  he  will  recon- 
sider this  question  of  the  deep  corruption  of  heart  he  has  thought  fit  to  ascribe  to 
me.  In  Judge  Douglas's  speech  of  March  22d,  1858,  which  I  hold  in  iny  hand,  he 
says: 

"  In  this  connection  there  is  another  topic  to  which  I  desire  to  allude.  I  seldom 
refer  to  the  course  of  newspapers,  or  notice  the  articles  which  they  publish  in  regard 
to  myself;  but  the  course  of  the  Washington  Union  has  been  so  extraordinary,. for 
the  last  two  or  three  months,  that  I  think  it  well  enough  to  make  some  allusion  to  it. 
It  has  read  me  out  of  the  Democratic  party  every  other  day,  at  least  for  two  or  three 
months,  and  keeps  reading  me  out,  and,  as  if  it  had  riot  succeeded,  still  continues  to 
read  me  out,  using  such  terms  as  "  traitor,"  "  renegade,"  "  deserter/'  and  other  kind 
and  polite  epithets  of  that  nature.  Sir,  I  have  no  vindication  to  make  of  my  De- 
mocracy against  the  Washington  Union,  or  any  other  newspapers.  I  am  willing  to 
allow  my  history  and  action  for  the  last  twenty  years  to  speak  for  themselves  as  to 
my  political  principles,  and  my  fidelity  to  political  obligations.  The  Washington 
Union  has  a  personal  grievance.  When  its  editor  was  nominated  for  public  printer 
I  declined  to  vote  for  him,  and  stated  that  at  some  time  I  might  give  my  reasons  for 
doing  so.  Since  I  declined  to  give  that  vote,  this  scurrilous  abuse,  these  vindictive 
and  constant  attacks  have  been  repeated  almost  daily  on  me.  Will  my  friend  from 
Michigan  read  the  article  to  which  I  allude  ?  " 

This  is  a  part  of  the  speech.  You  must  excuse  me  from  reading  the  entire  article 
of  the  Washington  Union,  as  Mr.  Stuart  read  it  for  Mr.  Douglas.  The  Judge  goe* 
on  and  sums  up,  as  I  think,  correctly: 

"  Mr.  President,  you  here  find  several  distinct  propositions  advanced  boldly  by  the 
Washington  Union  editorially,  and  apparently  authoritatively,  and  any  man  who 
questions  any  of  them  is  denounced  as  an  Abolitionist,  a  Freesoiler,  a  fanatic. 
The  propositions  are,  first,  that  the  primary  object  of  all  government  at  its  original 
institution  is  the  protection  of  person  and  property;  second,  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  declares  that  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States;  and  that,  therefore, 
thirdly,  all  State  laws,  whether  organic  or  otherwise,  which  prohibit  the  citizens  of 
one  State  from  settling  in  another  with  their  slave  property,  and  especially  declaring 
it  forfeited,  are  direct  violations  of  the  original  intention  of  the  Government  arm 
Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and,  fourth,  that  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves 
of  the  Northern  States  was  a  gross  outrage  v/r  the  rights  of  property,  inasmuch  *w 
it  was  involuntarily  done  on  the  part  of  the  owne;. 

"  Remember  that  this  article  was  published  in  the  Union  on  the  17th  of  Novem- 
ber, and  on  the  18th  appeared  the  first  article  giving  the  adhesion  of  the  Union  to  the 
Lecompton  Constitution.  It  was  in  these  words : 


81 

" '  KANSAS  AND  HER  CONSTITUTION. — The  vexed  question  is  settled.  The  prob 
lem  is  solved.  The  dead  point  of  danger  is  passed.  All  serious  trouble  to  Kansas 
affairs  is  over  and  gone' — 

'*  And  a  column,  nearly,  of  the  same  sort.  Then,  when  you  come  to  look  into  the 
Lecompton  Constitution,  you  find  the  same  doctrine  incorporated  in  it  which  was  put 
forth  editorially  in  the  Union.  What  is  it  ? 

"'ARTICLE  7,  Section  1.  The  right  of  property  is  before  and  higher  than  any 
Constitutional  sanction ;  and  the  right  of  the  owner  of  a  slave  to  such  slave  and  its 
increase  is  the  same  and  as  inviolable  as  the  right  of  the  owner  of  any  property 
whatever.' 

"  Then  in  the  schedule  is  a  provision  that  the  Constitution  may  be  amended  after 
1 8C4  by  a  two-thirds  vote. 

44 '  But  no  alteration  shall  be  made  to  affect  the  right  of  property  in  the  ownership 
of  slaves.' 

"  It  will  be  seen  by  these  clauses  in  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  that  they  are 
identical  in  spirit  with  the  authoritative  article  in  the  Washington  Union  of  the  day- 
previous  to  its  indorsement  of  this  Constitution." 

I  pass  over  some  portions  of  the  speech,  and  I  hope  that  any  one  who  feels  inter- 
ested in  this  matter  Avill  read  the  entire  section  of  the  speech,  and  see  whether  I  do 
the  Judge  injustice.  He  proceeds : 

"  When  I  saw  that  article  in  the  Union  of  the  1 7th  of  November,  followed  by  the 
glorification  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  on  the  18th  of  November,  and  this  clause 
in  the  Constitution  asserting  the  doctrine  that  a  State  has  no  right  to  prohibit  slavery 
within  its  limits,  I  saw  that  there  was  a  fatal  blow  being  struck  at  the  sovereignty  of 
the  States  of  this  Union." 

I  stop  the  quotation  there,  again  requesting  that  it  may  all  be  read.  I  have  read 
all  of  the  portion  I  desire  to  comment  upon.  What  is  this  charge  that  the  Judge 
thinks  I  must  have  a  very  corrupt  heart  to  make  ?  It  was  a  purpose  on  the  part  of 
certain  high  functionaries  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  people  of  one  State  to  pro- 
hibit the  people  of  any  other  State  from  entering  it  with  their  "property,"  so  called, 
and  making  it  a  slave  State.  In  other  words,  it  was  a  charge  implying  a  design  to 
make  the  institution  of  slavery  national.  And  now  I  ask  your  attention  to  what 
Judge  Douglas  has  himself  done  here.  I  know  he  made  that  part  of  the  speech  as 
a  reason  why  he  had  refused  to  vote  for  a  certain  man  for  public  printer,  but  when 
we  get  at  it,  the  charge  itself  is  the  very  one  I  made  ngainst  him,  that  he  thinks  I 
arn  so  corrupt  for  uttering.  Now,  W7hom  does  he  make  that  charge  against  ?  Does 
he  make  it  against  that  newspaper  editor  merely  ?  No ;  he  says  it  is  identical  in 
spirit  with  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  and  so  the  framers  of  that  Constitution  are 
brought  in  with  the  editor  of  the  newspaper  in  that  "fatal  blow  being  struck."  He 
did  not  call  it  a  "  conspiracy."  In  his  language  it  is  a  "  fatal  blow  being  struck." 
And  if  the  words  carry  the  meaning  better  when  changed  from  a  "  conspiracy  "  into 
a  "  fatal  blow  being  struck,"  I  will  change  my  expression  and  call  it  "  fatal  blow 
being  struck."  We  see  the  charge  made  not  merely  against  the  editor  of  the  Union, 
but  all  the  framers  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution;  and  not  only  so,  but  the  article 
was  an  authoritative  article.  By  whose  authority  ?  Is  there  any  question  but  he 
iiK-uns  it  was  by  the  authority  of  the  President  and  his  Cabinet — the  Administration  ? 

Is  there  any  sort  of  question  but  he  means  to  make  that  charge  ?  Then  there  are 
the  editors  of  the  Union,  the  framers  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  the  President 
of  the  United  States  and  his  Cabinet,  and  all  the  supporters  of  the  Lecompton  Con- 
stitution, in  Congress  and  out  of  Congress,  who  are  all  involved  in  this  "  fatal  blow 
being  struck."  I  commend  to  Judge  Douglas's  consideration  the  question  of  how 
corrupt  a  man's  heart  must  be  to  make  such  a  charge  ! 

Now,  my  friends,  I  have  but  one  branch  of  the  subject,  in  the  little  time  I  have 
left,  to  which  to  call  your  attention,  and  as  I  .shall  come  to  a  close  at  the  end  of  that 
branch,  it  is  probable  that  I  shall  not  occupy  quite  all  the  time  allotted  to  me.  Al- 
though on  these  questions  I  would  like  to  talk  twice  as  long  as  I  have,  I  could  not 


82 

enter  upon  another  head  and  discuss  it  properly  without  running  over  my  time.  I 
ask  the  attention  of  the  people  here  assembled  and  elsewhere,  to  the  course  that 
Judge  Douglas  is  pursuing  every  day  as  bearing  upon  this  question  of  making  slavery 
national.  Not  going  back  to  the  records,  but  taking  the  speeches  he  makes,  the 
speeches  he  made  yesterday  and  day  before,  and  makes  constantly  all  over  the  coun- 
try— I  ask  your  attention  to  them.  In  the  first  place,  what  is  necessary  to  make  the 
institution  national  ?  Not  war.  There  is  no  danger  that  the  people  of  Kentucky 
will  shoulder  their  muskets,  and,  with  a  young  nigger  stuck  on  every  bayonet,  march 
into  Illinois  and  force  them  upon  us.  There  is  no  danger  of  our  going  over  there 
and  making  war  upon  them.  Then  what  is  necessary  for  the  nationalization  of  sla- 
very ?  It  is  simply  the  next  Dred  Scott  decision.  It  is  merely  for  the  Supreme 
Court  to  decide  that  no  State  under  the  Constitution  can  exclude  it,  just  as  they  have 
already  decided  that  under  the  Constitution  neither  Congress  nor  the  Territorial  Leg- 
islature can  do  it.  When  that  is  decided  and  acquiesced  in,  the  whole  thing  is  done. 
This  being  true,  and  this  being  the  way,  as  I  think,  that  slavery  is  to  be  made  na- 
tional, let  us  consider  what  Judge  Douglas  is  doing  every  day  to  that  end.  In  the 
first  place,  let  us  see  what  influence  he  is  exerting  on  public  sentiment.  In  this  and 
like  communities,  public  sentiment  is  everything.  With  public  sentiment,  nothing 
can  fail ;  without  it  nothing  can  succeed.  Consequently  he  who  moulds  public  sen- 
timent, goes  deeper  than  he  who  enacts  statutes  or  pronounces  decisions.  He  makes 
statutes  and  decisions  possible  or  impossible  to  be  executed.  This  must  be  borne  in 
mind,  as  also  the  additional  fact  that  Judge  Douglas  is  a  man  of  vast  influence,  so 
great  that  it  is  enough  for  many  men  to  profess  to  believe  anything,  when  they  once 
find  out  that  Judge  Douglas  professes  to  believe  it.  Consider  also  the  attitude  he 
occupies  at  the  head  of  a  large  party — a  party  which  he  claims  lias  a  majority  of  all 
the  voters  in  the  country.  This  man  sticks  to  a  decision  which  forbids  the  people  of 
a  Territory  from  excluding  slavery,  and  he  does  so  not  because  he  says  it  is  right  in 
itself — he  does  not  give  any  opinion  on  that — but  because  it  has  been  decided  by  the 
court,  and  being  decided  by  the  court,  he  is,  and  you  are  bound  to  take  it  in  your  po- 
litical action  as  law — not  that  he  judges  at  all  of  its  merits,  but  because  a  decision 
of  the  court  is  to  him  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord"  He  places  it  on  that  ground  alone, 
and  you  will  bear  in  mind  that,  thus  committing  himself  unreservedly  to  this  decis- 
ion, commits  him  to  the  next  one  just  as  firmly  as  to  this.  He  did  not  commit  him- 
self on  account  of  the  merit  or  demerit  of  the  decision,  but  it  is  a  Thus  saith  the 
Lord.  The  next  decision,  as  much  as  this,  will  be  a  Thus  saith  the  Lord.  There  is 
nothing  that  can  divert  or  turn  him  away  from  this  decision.  It  is  nothing  that  I 
point  out  to  Mm  that  his  great  prototype,  Gen.  Jackson,  did  not  believe  in  the  bind- 
ing force  of  decisions.  It  is  nothing  to  him  that  Jefferson  did  not  so  believe.  I  have 
said  that  I  have  often  heard  him  approve  of  Jackson's  course  in  disregarding  the  de- 
cision of  the  Supreme  Court  pronouncing  a  National  Bank  constitutional.  He  says, 
I  did  not  hear  him  say  so.  He  denies  the  accuracy  of  my  recollection.  I  say  he 
ought  to  know  better  than  I,  but  I  will  make  no  question  about  this  thing,  though  it 
still  seems  to  me  that  I  heard  him  say  it  twenty  times.  I  will  tell  him  though,  that 
he  now  claims  to  stand  on  the  Cincinnati  platform,  which  affirms  that  Congress  can- 
not charter  a  National  Bank,  in  the  teeth  of  that  old  standing  decision  that  Congress 
can  charter  a  bank.  And  I  remind  him  of  another  piece  of  history  on  the  question 
of  respect  for  judicial  decisions,  and  it  is  a  piece  of  Illinois  history,  belonging  to  a 
time  when  the  large  party  to  which  Judge  Douglas  belonged,  were  displeased  with  a 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois,  because  they  had  decided  that  a  Governor 
could  not  remove  a  Secretary  of  State.  You  will  find  the  whole  story  in  Ford's 
History  of  Illinois,  and  I  know  that  Judge  Douglas  will  not  deny  that  he  was  then 
in  favor  of  overslaughing  that  decision  by  the  mode  of  adding  five  new  Judges,  so 
as  to  vote  down  the  four  old  ones.  Not  only  so,  but  it  ended  in  the  Judge's  sitting 
down  on  that  very  bench  as  one  of  the  Jive  new  Judges  to  break  down  the  four  old 
ones.  '  It  was  in  this  way  precisely  that  he  got  his  title  of  Judge.  Now,  when  the 
Judge  tells  me  that  men  appointed  conditionally  to  sit  as  members  of  a  court,  will 


83 

• 

have  to  be  catechised  beforehand  upon  some  subject,  I  say,  "  You  know,  Judge ;  yon 
have  tried  it."  When  he  says  a  court  of  this  kind  will  lose  the  confidence  of  all 
men,  will  be  prostituted  and  disgraced  by  such  a  proceeding,  I  say,  "  You  know 
best,  Judge ;  you  have  been  through  the  mill."  But  I  cannot  shake  Judge  Doug- 
las's teeth  loose  from  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Like  some  obstinate  animal  (I  mean 
no  disrespect),  that  will  hang  on  when  he  has  once  got  his  teeth  fixed ;  you  may  cut 
off  a  leg,  or  you  may  tear  away  an  arm,  still  he  will  not  relax  his  hold.  And  so  I 
may  point  out  to  the  Judge,  and  say  that  he  is  bespattered  all  over,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  his  political  life  to  the  present  time,  with  attacks  upon  judicial  decisions^— I 
may  out  off  limb  after  limb  of  his  public  record,  and  strive  to  wrench  him  from  a 
single  dictum  of  the  court — yet  I  cannot  divert  him  from  it.  He  hangs,  to  the  last, 
to  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  These  things  show  there  is  a  purpose  strong  as  death 
and  eternity  for  which  he  adheres  to  this  decision,  and  for  which  he  will  adhere  to 
all  other  decisions  of  the  same  court. 

A  Hibernian — "  Give  us  something  besides  Drid  Scott" 

Mr.  Lincoln — Yes ;  no  doubt  you  want  to  hear  something  that  don't  hurt.  Now, 
having  spoken  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  one  more  word  and  I  am  done.  Henry 
Clay,  my  beau  ideal  of  a  statesman,  the  man  for  whom  I  fought  all  my  humble  life — 
Henry  Clay  once  said  of  a  class  of  men  who  would  repress  all  tendencies  to  liberty 
and  ultimate  emancipation,  that  they  must,  if  they  would  do  this,  go  back  to  the  era 
of  our  Independence,  and  muzzle  the  cannon  which  thunders  its  annual  joyous  re- 
turn ;  they  must  blow  out  the  moral  lights  around  us ;  they  must  penetrate  the  hu- 
man soul,  and  eradicate  there  the  love  of  liberty ;  and  then,  and  not  till  then,  could 
they  perpetuate  slavery  in  this  country!  To  my  thinking,  Judge  Douglas  is,  by  his 
example  and  vast  influence,  doing  that  very  thing  in  this  community,  when  he  says 
that  the  negro  has  nothing  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Henry  Clay  plainlj 
understood  the  contrary.  Judge  Douglas  is  going  back  to  the  era  of  our  Revolution, 
arid  to  the  extent  of  his  ability,  muzzling  the  cannon  which  thunders  its  annual  joy- 
ous return.  When  he  invites  any  people,  willing  to  hav-e  slavery,  to  establish  it,  he 
Is  blowing  out  the  moral  lights  around  us.  When  he  says  he  "cares  not  whether 
slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted  up" — that  it  is  a  sacred  right  of  self-government — 
he  is,  in  my  judgment,  penetrating  the  human  soul  and  eradicating  the  light  of  rea- 
bon  and  the  love  of  liberty  in  this  American  people.  And  now  I  will  only  say  that 
when,  by  all  these  means  and  appliances,  Judge  Douglas  shall  succeed  in  bringing 
public  sentiment  to  an  exact  accordance  with  his  own  views — when  these  vast  assem- 
blages shall  echo  back  all  these  sentiments — when  they  shall  come  to  repeat  his  views 
and  to  avow  his  principles,  and  to  say  all  that  he  says  on  these  mighty  questions — 
then  it  needs  only  the  formality  of  the  second  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  he  indorses 
in  advance,  to  make  slavery  alike  lawful  in  all  the  Stated — old  as  well  as  new,  North 
as  well  as  South. 

My  friends,  that  ends  the  chapter.     The  Judge  can  take  his  half  hour. 


MR.  DOUGLAS'S  REPLY. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS  :  I  will  now  occupy  the  half  hour  allotted  to  me  in  replying 
to  Air.  Lincoln.  The  firtt  point  to  which  I  will  call  your  attention  is,  as  to  what  I 
said  about  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party  in  18o4,  and  the  platform  that 
was  formed  on  the  fifth  of  October,  of  that  year,  and  I  will  then  put  the  question  to 
Mr.  Lincoln,  whether  or  not,  he  approves  of  each  article  in  that  platform,  and  ask 
for  a  specific  answer.  I  did  not  charge  him  with  being  a  member  of  the  committee 
which  reported  that  platform.  I  charged  that  that  platform  was  the  platform  of  the 
Republican  party  adopted  by  them.  The  fact  that  it  was  the  platform  of  the  Repub- 
lican party  is  not  denied,  but  Mr.  Lincoln  now  says,  that  although  his  name  was  on 
the  committee  which  reported  it,  that  he  does  not  think  he  was  there,  but  thinks  he 


was  in  Tazewell,  holding  court     Now,  I  want  to  remind  Mr.  Lincoln  that  ho  was 
at  Springfield  when  that  Convention  was  held  and  those  resolutions  adopted. 

The  point  I  am  going  to  remind  Mr.  Lincoln  of  is  this  :  that  after  I  had  made  my 
speech  in  1854,  during  the  fair,  he  gave  me  notice  that  he  was  going  to  reply  to  me 
the  next  day.  I  was  sick  at  the  time,  but  I  staid  over  in  Springfield  to  hear  his  re- 
ply and  to  reply  to  him.  On  that  day  this  very  Convention,  the  resolutions  adopted 
by  which  I  have  read,  was  to  meet  in  the  Senate  chamber.  He  spoke  in  the  hall  of 
the  House  ;  and  when  he  got  through  his  speech — my  recollection  is  distinct,  and  1 
shall  never  forget  it — Mr.  Codding  walked  in  as  I  took  the  stand  to  reply,  and  gave 
notice  that  the  Republican  State  Convention  would  meet  instantly  in  the  Sonata 
chamber,  and  called  upon  the  Republicans  to  retire  there  and  go  into  this  very  Con 
vention,  instead  of  remaining  and  listening  to  me. 

In  the  first  place,  Mr.  Lincoln  was  selected  by  the  very  men  who  made  the   Re- 
publican organization,  on  that  day,  to  reply  to  me.     He  spoke  for  them  and  for  that 
party,  and  he  was  the  leader  of  the  party  ;  and  on  the  very  day  he  made  his  speech 
in  reply  to  me,  preaching  up  this  same  doctrine  of  negro  equality,  under  the  Decla 
ration  of  Independence,  this  Republican  party  met  in  Convention.     Another  evidence 
that  he  was  acting  in  concert  with  them  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  that  Conven 
tion  waited  an  hour  after  its  time  of  meeting  to  hear  Lincoln's   speech,  and  Codding 
one  of  their  leading  men,  marched  in  the  moment  Lincoln  got  through,  and  gave  no 
tice  that  they  did  not  want  to  hear  me,  and  would  proceed  with    the  business  of  th* 
Convention.     Still  another  fact.     I  have  here  a  newspaper   printed   at  Springfield. 
Mr.  Lincoln's  own  town,  in  October,  1854,  a  few  days   afterward,  publishing   thes< 
resolutions,  charging  Mr.  Lincoln  with  entertaining  these    sentiments,  and    trying  to 
prove  that  they  were  also  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Yates,  then  candidate  for  Congress. 
This  has  been  published  on  Mr.  Lincoln  over  and  over  again,  and  never   before   has 
he  denied  it. 

But,  my  friends,  this  denial  of  his  that  he  did  not  act  on  the  committee,  is  a  miser- 
able quibble  to  avoid  the  main  issue,  which  is,  that  this  Republican  platform  declares 
in  favor  of  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  Has  Lincoln  an- 
swered whether  he  indorsed  that  or  not  ?  I  called  his  attention  to  it  when  I  first  ad- 
dressed you,  and  asked  him  for  an  answer,  and  I  then  predicted  that  he  would  not 
answer.  How  does  he  answer  ?  AVhy,  that  he  was  not  on  the  committee  that  wrote 
the  resolutions.  I  then  repeated  the  next  proposition  contained  in  the  resolutions, 
which  was  to  restrict  slavery  in  those  States  in  which  it  exists,  and  asked  him  whether 
he  indorsed  it.  Does  he  answer  yes,  or  no  ?  He  says  in  reply,  "  I  was  not  on  the 
committee  at  the  time ;  I  was  up  in  Tazewell."  The  next  question  I  put  to  him  was, 
whether  he  was  in  favor  of  prohibiting  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into 
the  Union.  I  put  the  question  to  him  distinctly,  whether,  if  the  people  of  the  Terri- 
tory, when  they  had  sufficient  population  to  make  a  State,  should  form  their  Consti- 
tution recognizing  slavery,  he  would  vote  for  or  against  its  admission.  He  is  a  can- 
didate for  the  United  States  Senate,  and  it  is  possible,  if  he  should  be  elected,  that 
he  would  have  to  vote  directly  on  that  question.  I  asked  him  to  answer  me  and  you, 
whether  he  would  vote  to  admit  a  State  into  the  Union,  with  slavery  or  without  it,  as 
its  own  people  might  choose.  He  did  not  answer  that  question.  He  dodges  that 
question  also,  under  the  cover  that  he  was  not  on  the  Committee  at  the  time,  that  he 
was  not  present  when  the  platform  was  made.  I  want  to  know  if  he  should  hap- 
pen to  be  in  the  Senate  when  a  State  applied  for  admission,  with  a  Constitution 
acceptable  to  her  own  people,  he  would  vote  to  admit  that  State,  if  slavery  was  one 
of  its  institutions.  He  avoids  the  answer. 

It  is  true  he  gives  the  Abolitionists  to  understand  by  a  hint  that  he  would  not  vote 
to  admit  such  a  State.  And  why  ?  He  goes  on  to  say  that  the  man  who  would  talk 
about  giving  each  State  the  right  to  have  slavery,  or  not,  as  it  pleased,  was  akin  to 
the  man  who  would  muzzle  the  guns  which  thundered  forth  the  annual  joyous  return 
of  the  day  of  our  independence.  He  says  that  that  kind  of  talk  is  casting  a  blight 
on  the  glory  of  this  country.  What  is  the  meaning  of  that  ?  That  he  is  not  in  favor 


85 

* 

of  each  State  to  have  the  right  of  doing  as  it  pleases   on  the  slavery   q jcstion  ?     I 
will  put  the  question  to  him  again  and  again,  and  I  intend  to  force  it  out  of  him. 

Then  again,  this  platform  which  was  made  at  Springfield  by  his  own  party,  when 
he  was  its  acknowledged  head,  provides  that  Republicans  will  insist  on  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  I  asked  Lincoln  specifically  whether  he 
agreed  with  them  in  that  ?  ["  Did  you  get  an  answer?"]  He  is  afraid  to  answer  it. 
He  knows  I  will  trot  him  down  to  Egypt.  I  intend  to  make  him  answer  there,  or  I 
will  show  the  people  of  Illinois  that  he  does  not  intend  to  answer  these  questions. 
The  Convention  to  which  I  have  been  alluding  goes  a  little  further,  and  pledges  itself 
to  exclude  slavery  from  all  the  Territories  over  which  the  General  Government  has 
exclusive  jurisdiction  north  of  36  deg.  30  min.,  as  well  as  South.  Now  I  want  to 
know  whether  he  approves  that  provision.  I  want  him  to  answer,  and  when  he  does, 
I  want  to  know  his  opinion  on  another  point,  which  is,  whether  he  will  redeem  the 
pledge  of  this  platform  and  resist  the  acquirement  of  any  more  territory  unless  sla- 
very therein  shall  be  forever  prohibited.  I  want  him  to  answer  this  last  question. 
Each  of  the  questions  I  have  put  to  him  are  practical  questions — questions  based 
upon  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Black  Republican  party,  and  I  want  to  know 
whether  he  is  the  first,  last,  and  only  choice  of  a  party  with  whom  he  does  not  agree 
in  principle.  He  does  not  deny  but  that  that  principle  was  unanimously  adopted  by 
the  Republican  party  ;  he  does  not  deny  that  the  whole  Republican  party  is  pledged 
to  it ;  he  does  not  deny  that  a  man  who  is  not  faithful  to  it  is  faithless  to  the  Repub- 
lican party ;  and  now  I  want  to  know  whether  that  party  is  unanimously  in  favor  of 
a  man  who  does  not  adopt  that  creed  and  agree  with  them  in  their  principles :  I 
want  to  know  whether  the  man  who  does  not  agree  with  them,  and  who  is  afraid  to 
avow  his  differences,  and  who  dodges  the  issue,  is  the  first,  last,  and  only  choice  of 
the  Republican  party. 

A  voice  —  "  How  about  the  conspiracy  ?  " 

Mr.  Douglas  —  Nevermind,  I  will  come  to  that  soon  enough.  But  the  platform 
which  I  have  read  to  you,  not  only  lays  down  these  principles,  but  it  adds : 

Resolved,  That  in  furtherance  of  these  principles  we  will  use  such  constitutional  and  law- 
ful means  as  shall  seem  best  adapted  to  their  accomplishment,  and  that  we  will  support  no 
man  for  office,  under  the  General  or  State  Government,  who  is  not  positively  and  fully  com- 
mitted to  the  support  of  these  principles,  and  whose  personal  character  and  conduct  is  not  a 
guaranty  that  he  is  reliable,  and  who  shall  not  have  abjured  old  party  allegiance  and  ties. 

The  Black  Republican  party  stands  pledged  that  they  will  never  support  Lincoln 
until  he  has  pledged  himself  to  that  platform,  but  he  cannot  devise  his  answer ;  he 
has  not  made  up  his  mind  whether  he  will  or  not.  He  talked  about  everything  else 
he  could  think  of  to  occupy  his  hour  and  a  half,  and  when  he  could  not  think  of  any- 
thing more  to  say,  without  an  excuse  for  refusing  to  answer,  these  questions,  he  sat 
down  long  before  his  time  was  out. 

In  relation  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  charge  of  conspiracy  against  me,  I  have  a  word  to  say. 
In  his  speech  to-day  he  quotes  a  playful  part  of  his  speech  at  Springfield,  about 
Stephen,  and  James,  and  Franklin,  and  Roger,  and  says  that  I  did  not  take  exception 
to  it.  I  did  not  answer  it,  and  he  repeats  it  again.  I  did  not  take  exception 
to  this  figure  of  his.  He  has  a  right  to  be  as  playful  as  he  pleases  in  throwing  his 
•arguments  together,  and  I  will  not  object ;  but  I  did  take  objection  to  his  second 
Springfield  speech,  in  which  he  stated  that  he  intended  his  first  speech  as  a  charge  of 
xHTuptiori  or  conspiracy  against  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  President 
Pierce,  President  Buchanan,  and  myself.  That  gave  the  offensive  character  to  the 
charge.  He  then  said  that  when  he  made  it  he  did  not  know  whether  it  was  true  or 
not,  but  inasmuch  as  Judge  Douglas  had  not  denied  it,  although  he  had  replied  to  the 
other  parts  of  his  speech  three  times,  he  repeated  it  as  a  charge  of  conspiracy  against 
me,  thus  charging  me  with  moral  turpitude.  When  he  put  it  in  that  form,  I  did  say, 
that  inasmuch  as  he  repeated  the  charge  simply  because  I  had  not  denied  it,  I  would 
deprive  him  of  the  opportunity  of  ever  repeating  it  again,  by  declaring  that  it  was, 


86 

. 

in  all  its  bearings,  an  infamous  lie.     lie  says  he  will  repeat  it  until  I   answer  his 

folly  and  nonsense,  about  Stephen,  and  Franklin,  and  Roger,  and  Bob,  and  James. 

He  studied  that  out — prepared  that  one  sentence  with  the  greatest  care,  committed 
it  to  memory,  and  put  it  in  his  first  Springfield  speech,  and  now  he  carries  that 
speech  around  and  reads  that  sentence  to  show  how  pretty  it  is.  His  vanity  is 
wcunded  because  I  will  not  go  into  that  beautiful  figure  of  his  about  the  building 
of  a  house.  All  I  have  to  say  is,  that  I  am  not  green  enough  to  let  him  make  ji 
charge  whit  h  he  acknowledges  he  does  not  know  to  be  true,  and  then  take  up 
my  time  in  answering  it,  when  I  know  it  to  be  false  and  nobody  else  knows  it  to 
t>3  true. 

I  have  not  brought  a  charge  of  moral  turpitude  against  him.  "When  he,  or  any- 
other  man,  brings  one  against  me,  instead  of  disproving  it,  I  will  say  that  it  is  a  lie, 
and  let  him  prove  it  if  he  can. 

I  have  lived  twenty-five  years  in  Illinois.  I  have  served  you  with  all  the  fidelity 
and  ability  which  I  possess,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  is  at  liberty  to  attack  my  public  ac- 
tion, my  votes,  and  my  conduct ;  but  when  he  dares  to  attack  my  moral  integrity,  by 
a  charge  of  conspiracy  between  myself,  Chief  Justice  Taney  and  the  Supreme  Court, 
and  two  Presidents  of  the  United  States,  I  will  repel  it. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  not  character  enough  for  integrity  and  truth,  merely  on  his  own 
ipse  dixitj  to  arraign  President  Buchanan,  President  Pierce,  and  nine  Judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  not  one  of  whom  would  be  complimented  by  being  put  on  an  equal- 
ity with  him.  There  is  an  unpardonable  presumption  in  a  man  putting  himself  up 
before  thousands  of  people,  and  pretending  that  his  ipse  dixit,  without  proof,  with- 
out fact  and  without  truth,  is  enough  to  bring  down  and  destroy  the  purest  and  best 
of  living  men. 

Fellow-citizens,  my  time  is  fast  expiring ;  I  must  pass  on.  Mr.  Lincoln  wants  to 
know  why  I  voted  against  Mr.  Chase's  amendment  to  the  Nebraska  bill.  I  will  tell 
him.  In  the  first  place,  the  bill  already  conferred  all  the  power  which  Congress  had, 
by  giving  the  people  the  whole  power  over  the  subject.  Chase  offered  a  proviso 
that  they  might  abolish  slavery,  which  by  implication  would  convey  the  idea  that 
they  could  prohibit  by  not  introducing  that  institution.  Gen.  Cass  asked  him  to  mod- 
ify his  amendment,  so  as  to  provide  that  the  people  might  either  prohibit  or  intro- 
duce slavery,  and  thus  make  it  fair  and  equal.  Chase  refused  to  so  modify  his 
proviso,  and  then  Gen.  Cass  and  all  the  rest  of  us,  voted  it  down.  Those  facts  ap- 
pear on  the  journals  and  debates  of  Congress,  where  Mr.  Lincoln  found  the  charge, 
and  if  he  had  told  the  whole  truth,  there  would  have  been  no  necessity  for  me  to  oc- 
cupy your  time  in  explaining  the  matter. 

Mr.  Lincoln  wants  to  know  why  the  word  "  State,"  as  well  as  "  Territory,"  was 
put  into  the  Nebraska  bill  ?  I  will  tell  him.  It  was  put  there  to  meet  just  such 
false  arguments  as  he  has  been  adducing.  That  first,  not  only  the  people  of  the 
Territories  should  do  as  they  pleased,  but  that  when  they  come  to  be  admitted  as 
States,  they  should  come  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as  the  people  de 
terrain ed.  I  meant  to  knock  in  the  head  this  Abolition  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln's, 
that  there  shall  be  no  more  slave  States,  even  if  the  people  want  them.  And  it  does 
not  do  for  him  to  say,  or  for  any  other  Black  Republican  to  say,  that  there  is  nobody 
in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  no  more  slave  States,  and  that  nobody  wants  to  interfere 
with  the  right  of  the  people  to  do  as  they  please.  What  was  the  origin  of  the  Mis- 
souri difficulty  and  the  Missouri  Compromise  ?  The  people  of  Missouri  formed  a 
Constitution  as  a  slave  State,  and  asked  admission  into  the  Union,  but  the  Freesoil 
party  of  the  North  being  in  a  majority,  refused  to  admit  her  because  she  had  slavery 
as  one  of  her  institutions.  Hence  this  first  slavery  agitation  arose  upon  a  State  and 
not  upon  a  Territory,  and  yet  Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  know  why  the  word  State  was 
placed  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  The  whole  Abolition  agitation  arose  on  that 
doctrine  of  prohibiting  a  State  from  coming  in  with  Slavery  or  not,  as  it  pleased, 
and  that  same  doctrine  is  here  in  this  Republican  platform  of  1854  ;  it  has  never 
been  repealed ;  and  every  Black  Republican  stands  pledged  by  that  platform,  nevei 


87 

to  vote  for  any  man  who  is  not  in  favor  of  it.  Yet  Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  know  that 
there  is  a  man  in  the  world  who  is  in  favor  of  preventing  a  State  from  coming  in 
as  it  pleases,  notwithstanding.  The  Springfield  platform  says  that  they,  the  Repub- 
lican party,  will  not  allow  a  State  to  come  in  under  such  circumstances.  He  is  an 
ignorant  man. 

Now  you  see  that  upon  these  very  points  I  am  as  far  from  bringing  Mr.  Lincoln 
up  to  the  line  as  I  ever  was  before.  He  does  not  want  to  avow  his  principles.  I  do 
it:***  to  avow  mine,  as  clear  as  sunlight  in  mid-day.  Democracy  is  founded  upon  the 
eternal  principle  of  right.  The  plainer  these  principles  are  avowed  before  the  peo- 
ple, the  stronger  will  be  the  support  which  they  will  receive.  I  only  wish  1  had  the 
power  to  make  them  so  clear  that  they  would  shine  in  the  heavens  for  every  man, 
woman,  and  child  to  read.  The  first  of  those  principles  that  I  would  proclaim  would 
be;  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  doctrine  of  uniformity  between  the  different  States, 
and  I  would  declare  instead  the  sovereign  right  of  each  State  to  decide  the  slavery 
question  as  well  as  all  other  domestic  questions  for  themselves,  without  interference 
from  any  other  State  or  power  whatsoever. 

When  that  principle  is  recognized,  you  will  have  peace  and  harmony  and  frater 
nal  feeling  between  all  the  States  of  this  Union ;  until  you  do  recognize  that  doo 
trine,  there  will  be  sectional  warfare  agitating  and  distracting  the  country.  What 
does  Mr.  Lincoln  propose?  He  says  that  the  Union  cannot  exist  divided  into 
free  and  slave  States.  If  it  cannot  endure  thus  divided,  then  he  must  strive  to 
make  them  all  free  or  all  slave,  which  will  inevitably  bring  about  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  told  that  my  time  is  out,  and  I  am  obliged  to  stop. 


SECOND  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  FKEEPORT, 

August  27,  1858. 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  SPEECH. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  On  Saturday  last,  Judge  Douglas  and  myself  first 
met  in  public  discussion.  He  spoke  one  hour,  I  an  hour  and  a  half,  and  he  replied 
for  half  an  hour.  The  order  is  now  reversed.  I  am  to  speak  an  hour,  he  an  hour 
and  a  half,  and  then  I  am  to  reply  for  half  an  hour.  I  propose  to  devote  myself 
during  the  first  hour  to  the  scope  of  what  was  brought  within  the  range  of  his  half- 
hour  speech  at  Ottawa.  Of  course  there  was  brought  within  the  scope  in  that  half- 
hour's  speech  something  of  his  own  opening  speech.  In  the  course  of  that  opening 
aigumtnt  Judge  Douglas  proposed  to  me  seven  distinct  interrogatories.  In  my 
speech  of  an  hour  and  a  half,  I  attended  to  some  other  parts  of  his  speech,  and  inci- 
dentally, as  I  thought,  answered  one  of  the  interrogatories  then.  I  then  distinctly 
intimated  to  him  that  I  would  answer  the  rest  of  his  interrogatories  on  condition 
only  that  he  should  agree  to  answer  as  many  for  me.  He  made  no  intimation  at  the 
time  of  the  proposition,  nor  did  he  in  his  reply  allude  at  all  to  that  suggestion  of 
mine.  I  do  him  no  injustice  in  saying  that  he  occupied  at  least  half  of  his  reply  in 
dealing  with  me  as  though  I  had  refused  to  answer  his  interrogatories.  I  now  pro- 
pose that  I  will  answer  any  of  the  interrogatories,  upon  condition  that  he  will  answer 
questions  from  me  not  exceeding  the  same  number.  I  give  him  an  opportunity  to 
respond.  The  Judge  remains  silent.  I  now  say  that  I  will  answer  lu's  interrogate- 


88 

ries,  whether  he  answers  mine  or  not ;  and  that  after  I  have  done  so,  I  shall  pro- 
pound mine  to  him. 

I  have  supposed  myself,  since  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party  at  Bloom- 
ington,  in  May,  1856,  bound  as  a  party  man  by  the  platforms  of  the  party,  then  and 
since.  If  in  any  interrogatories  which  I  shall  answer  I  go  beyond  the  scope  of  what 
is  within  these  platforms,  it  will  be  perceived  that  no  one  is  responsible  but  myself. 

Having  said  thus  much,  I  will  take  up  the  Judge's  interrogatories  as  I  find  them 
printed  in  the  Chicago  Times,  and  answer  them  seriatim.  In  order  that  there  may 
be  no  mistake  about  it,  I  have  copied  the  interrogatories  in  writing,  and  also  my  an- 
swers to  them.  The  first  one  of  these  interrogatories  is  in  these  words : 

Question  1.  "I  desire  to  know  whether  Lincoln  to-day  stands,  as  he  did  in  1854, 
in  favor  of  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  ?" 

Answer.  I  do  not  now,  nor  ever  did,  stand  in  favor  of  the  unconditional  repeal 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 

Q.  2.  "  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  stands  pledged  to-day,  as  he  did  in 
1854,  against  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union,  even  if  the 
people  want  them?" 

A.  I  do  not  now,  or  ever  did,  stand  pledged  against  the  admission  of  any  more 
nlave  States  into  the  Union. 

Q.  3.  "I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged  against  the  admission  of 
a  new  State  into  the  Union  with  such  a  Constitution  as  the  people  of  that  State  may 
see  fit  to  make?" 

A.  I  do  not  stand  pledged  against  the  admission  of  a  new  State  into  the  Union, 
with  such  a  Constitution  as  the  people  of  that  State  may  see  fit  to  make. 

Q.  4.  "I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands  to-day  pledged  to  the  abolition  of  sla- 
very in  the  District  of  Columbia?" 

A.  I  do  not  stand  to-day  pledged  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia. 

Q.  5.  "  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  the  prohibition  of 
the  slave-trade  between  the  different  States?" 

A.  I  do  not  stand  pledged  to  the  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade  between  the  dif- 
icrent  States. 

Q.  6.  "  I  desire  to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  North  as  well  as  South  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise line?" 

A.  I  am  impliedly,  if  not  expressly,  pledged  to  a  belief  in  the  right  and  duty  of 
Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  United  States  Territories. 

Q.  7.  "  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  is  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  any 
new  territory  unless  slavery  is  first  prohibited  therein?" 

A,  I  am  not  generally  opposed  to  honest  acquisition  of  territory ;  and,  in  any 
given  case,  I  would  or  would  not  oppose  such  acquisition,  accordingly  as  I  might 
think  ,°uch  acquisition  would  or  would  not  aggravate  the  slavery  question  among  our- 
selves. 

Now,  my  friends,  it  will  be  perceived  upon  an  examination  of  these  questions  and 
a.iswers,  that  so  far  I  have  only  answered  that  I  was  not  pledged  to  this,  that  or  the 
other.  The  Judge  has  not  framed  his  interrogatories  to  ask  me  anything  more  than 
this,  and  I  have  answered  in  strict  accordance  with  the  interrogatories,  and  have  an- 
swered truly  that  I  am  not  pledged  at  all  upon  any  of  the  points  to  which  I  have 
answered.  But  I  am  not  disposed  to  hang  upon  the  exact  form  of  his  interrogatory. 
I  am  rather  disposed  to  take  up  at  least  some  of  these  questions,  and  state  what  I 
really  think  upon  them. 

As  to  the  first  one,  in  regard  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  I  have  never  hesitated  to 
say,  and  I  do  not  now  hesitate  to  say,  that  I  think,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  are  entitled  to  a  Congressional  Fu- 
gitive Slave  law.  Having  said  that,  I  have  had  nothing  to  say  in  regard  to  the  ex- 
isting Fugitive  Slave  law,  further  than  that  I  think  it  should  have  been  framed  so  as 


89 

to  be  free  from  some  of  the  objections  that  pertain  to  it,  without  lessening  its  efficien- 
cy. And  inasmuch  as  we  are  not  now  in  an  agitation  in  regard  to  an  alteration  or 
modification  of  that  law,  I  would  not  be  the  man  to  introduce  it  as  a  new  subject  of 
agitation  upon  the  general  question  of  slavery. 

In  regard  to  the  other  question,  of  whether  I  am  pledged  to  the  admission  of  any 
more  slave  States  into  the  Union,  I  state  to  you  very  frankly  that  I  would  be  exceed- 
ingly sorry  ever  to  be  put  in  a  position  of  having  to  pass  upon  that  question.  I 
.should  be  exceedingly  glad  to  know  that  there  would  never  be  another  slave  State 
admitted  into  the  Union ;  but  I  must  add,  that  if  slavery  shall  be  kept  out  of  tho 
Territories  during  the  territorial  existence  of  any  one  given  Territory,  and  then  the 
people  shall,  having  a  fair  chance  and  a  clear  field,  when  they  come  to  adopt  the  Con- 
stitution, do  such  an  extraordinary  thing  as  to  adopt  a  slave  Constitution,  uninfluenced 
by  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if  we  own 
the  country,  but  to  admit  them  into  the  Union. 

The  third  interrogatory  is  answerei  by  the  answer  to  the  second,  it  being,  as  I  con- 
ceive, the  same  as  the  second. 

The  fourth  one  is  in  regard  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
In  relation  to  thaf,  I  have  my  mind  very  distinctly  made  up.  I  should  be  exceed- 
ingly glad  to  see  slavery  abolished  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  I  believe  that  Con- 
gress possesses  the  constitutional  power  to  abolish  it.  Yet  as  a  member  of  Congress, 
I  should  not  with  my  present  views,  be  in  favor  of  endeavoring  to  abolish  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  unless  it  would  be  upon  these  conditions  :  First ,  that  the 
abolition  should  be  gradual.  Second,  that  it  should  be  on  a  vote  of  the  majority  of 
qualified  voters  in  the  District ;  and  third,  that  compensation  should  be  made  to  un- 
willing owners.  With  these  three  conditions,  I  confess  I  would  be  exceedingly  glad 
to  see  Congress  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and,  in  the  language  of 
Henry  Clay,  "  sweep  from  our  Capital  that  foul  blot  upon  our  nation." 

In  regard  to  the  fifth  interrogatory,  I  must  say  here,  that  as  to  the  question  of  the 
abolition  of  the  slave-trade  between  the  different  States,  I  can  truly  answer,  as  I 
have,  that  I  am  pledged  to  nothing  about  it.  It  is  a  subject  to  which  I  have  not 
given  that  mature  consideration  that  would  make  me  feel  authorized  to  state  a  po- 
sition so  as  to  hold  myself  entirely  bound  by  it.  In  other  words,  that  question  has 
never  been  prominently  enough  before  me  to  induce  me  to  investigate  whether  we 
really  have  the  constitutional  power  to  do  it.  I  could  investigate  it  if  I  had  sufficient 
time,  to  bring  myself  to  a  conclusion  upon  that  subject ;  but  I  have  not  done  so,  and 
I  say  so  frankly  to  you  here,  and  to  Judge  Douglas.  I  must  say,  however,  that  if  I 
should  be  of  opinion  that  Congress  does  possess  the  constitutional  power  to  abolish 
the  slave-trade  among  the  different  States,  I  should  still  not  be  in  favor  of  the  exer- 
cise of  that  power  unless  upon  some  conservative  principle  as  I  conceive  it,  akin  to 
what  I  have  said  in  relation  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

My  answer  as  to  whether  I  desire  that  slavery  should  be  prohibited  in  all  the  Ter- 
ritories of  the  United  States,  is  full  and  explicit  within  itself,  and  cannot  be  made 
clearer  by  any  comments  of  mine.  So  I  suppose  in  regard  to  the  question  whether 
I  am  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  any  more  territory  unless  slavery  is  first  prohib- 
ited therein,  my  answer  is  such  that  I  could  add  nothing  by  way  of  illustration,  or 
making  myself  better  understood,  than  the  answer  which  I  have  placed  in  writing. 

Now  in  all  this,  the  Judge  has  me,  and  he  has  me  on  the  record.  I  suppose  he 
had  flattered  himself  that  I  was  really  entertaining  one  set  of  opinions  for  one  place 
and  another  set  for  another  place — that  I  was  afraid  to  say  at  one  place  what  I  ut- 
tered at  another.  What  I  am  saying  here  I  suppose  I  say  to  a  vast  audience  as 
strongly  tending  to  Abolitionism  as  any  audience  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  I  believe 
I  am  saying  that  which,  if  it  would  be  offensive  to  any  persons  and  render  them  ene- 
mies to  myself,  would  be  offensive  to  persons  in  this  audience. 

I  now  proceed  to  propound  to  the  Judge  the  interrogatories,  so  far  as  I  have  framed 
them.  I  will  bring  forward  a  new  installment  when  I  get  them  ready.  I  will  bring 
them  forward  now,  only  reaching  to  number  four. 


90 

The  first  one  is : 

Question  1.  If  the  people  of  Kansas  shall,  by  means  entirely  unobjectionable  in 
all  other  respects,  adopt  a  State  Constitution,  and  ask  admission  into  the  Union  under 
it,  before  they  have  the  requisite  number  of  inhabitants  according  to  the  English  bill 
— some  ninety -three  thousand — will  you  vote  to  admit  them  ? 

Q.  2.  Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Territory,  in  any  lawful  way,  against 
the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits  prior  to 
the  formation  of  a  State  Constitution  ? 

Q.  3.  If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  shall  decide  that  States  cannot 
exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  are  you  in  favor  of  acquiescing  in,  adopting  and 
following  such  decision  as  a  rule  of  political  action  ? 

Q.  4.  Are  you  in  favor  of  acquiring  additional  territory,  in  disregard  of  how  such 
acquisition  may  affect  the  nation  on  the  slavery  question  ? 

As  introductory  to  these  interrogatories  which  Judge  Douglas  propounded  to  me 
at  Ottawa,  he  read  a  set  of  resolutions  which  he  said  Judge  Trumbull  and  myself 
had  participated  in  adopting,  in  the  first  Republican  State  Convention,  held  at  Spring- 
field, in  October,  1854.  lie  insisted  that  I  and  Judge  Trumbull,  and  perhaps  the 
entire  Republican  party,  were  responsible  for  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  set  of 
resolutions  which  he  read,  and  I  understand  that  it  was  from  that  set  of  resolutions 
that  he  deduced  the  interrogatories  which  he  propounded  to  me,  using  these  resolu- 
tions as  a  sort  of  authority  for  propounding  those  questions  to  me.  Now  I  say  here 
to-day  that  I  do  not  answer  his  interrogatories  because  of  their  springing  at  all  from 
that  set  of  resolutions  which  he  read.  I  answered  them  because  Judge  Douglas 
thought  fit  to  ask  them.  I  do  not  now,  nor  never  did,  recognize  any  responsibility 
upon  myself  in  that  set  of  resolutions.  When  I  replied  to  him  on  that  occasion,  I 
assured  him  that  I  never  had  anything  to  do  with  them.  I  repeat  here  to-day,  that 
I  never  in  any  possible  form  had  anything  to  do  with  that  set  of  resolutions.  It 
turns  out,  I  believe,  that  those  resolutions  were  never  passed  in  any  Convention  held 
in  Springfield.  It  turns  out  that  they  were  never  passed  at  jfhy  Convention  or  any 
public  meeting  that  I  had  any  part  in.  I  believe  it  turns  out  in  addition  to  all  this, 
that  there  was  not,  in  the  fall  of  1854,  any  Convention  holding  a  session  in  Spring- 
field, calling  itself  a  Republican  State  Convention ;  yet  it  is  true  there  was  a  Con- 
vention, or  assemblage  of  men  calling  themselves  a  Convention,  at  Springfield,  that 
did  pass  some  resolutions.  But  so  little  did  I  really  know  of  the  proceedings  of  that 
Convention,  or  what  set  of  resolutions  they  had  passed,  though  having  a  general 
knowledge  that  there  had  been  such  an  assemblage  of  men  there,  that  when  Judge 
Douglas  read  the  resolutions,  I  really  did  not  know  but  they  had  been  the  resolutions 
passed  then  and  there.  I  did  not  question  that  they  were  the  resolutions  adopted. 
For  I  could  not  bring  myself  to  suppose  that  Judge  Douglas  could  say  what  he  did 
upon  this  subject  without  hiowing  that  it  was  true.  I  contented  myself,  on  that  oc- 
casion, with  denying,  as  I  truly  could,  all  connection  with  them,  not  denying  or  affirm- 
ing whether  they  were  passed  at  Springfield.  Now  it  turns  out  that  he  had  got  hold 
of  some  resolutions  passed  at  some  Convention  or  public  meeting  in  Kane  county 
I  wish  to  say  here,  that  I  don't  conceive  that  in  any  fair  and  just  mind  this  discovery 
relieves  me  at  all.  I  had  just  as  much  to  do  with  the  Convention  in  Kane  county  as 
that  at  Springfield.  I  am  just  as  much  responsible  for  the  resolutions  at  Kane 
county  as  those  at  Springfield,  the  amount  of  the  responsibility  being  exactly  nothing 
in  either  case ;  no  more  than  there  would  be  in  regard  to  a  set  of  resolutions  passed 
in  the  moon. 

I  allude  to  this  extraordinary  matter  in  this  canvass  for  some  further  purpose  than 
anything  yet  advanced.  Judge  Douglas  did  not  make  his  statement  upon  that  oc- 
casion as  matters  that  he  believed  to  be  true,  but  he  stated  them  roundly  as  being 
true,  in  such  form  as  to  pledge  his  veracity  for  their  truth.  When  the  whole  matter 
turns  out  as  it  does,  and  when  we  consider  who  Judge  Douglas  is — that  he  is  a  dis- 
tinguished Senator  of  the  United  States — that  he  has  served  nearly  twelve  years  as 
euch — that  his  character  is  not  at  all  limited  as  an  ordinary  Senator  of  the  United 


91 

States,  but  that  his  name  has  become  of  world-wide  renown — it  is  mos*.  extraordinary 
that  he  should  so  far  forget  all  the  suggestions  of  justice  to  an  adversary,  or  of  pru 
donee  to  himself,  as  to  venture  upon  the  assertion  of  that  which  the  slightest  inves 
tigation  would   have  shown  him  to  be  wholly  false.     I  can  only  account  for  his  hav- 
ing done  so   upon  th  e  supposition  that  that  evil  genius  which  has  attended  him 
through  his  life,  giving  to  him  an  apparent  astonishing  prosperity,  such  as  to  lead 
very  many  good  men  to  doubt  there  being  any  advantage  in  virtue  over  vice — I  say 
I  can  only  account  for  it  on  die  supposition  that  that  evil  genius  has  at  last  made  up 
its  mind  to  forsake  him. 

And  I  may  add  that  another  extraordinary  feature  of  the  Judge's  conduct  in  this 
canvass — made  more  extraordinary  by  this  incident — is,  that  he  is  in  the  habit,  in 
almost  all  the  speeches  he  makes,  of  charging  falsehood  upon  his  adversaries,  myself 
and  others.  I  now  ask  whether  lie  is  able  to  find  in  any  thing  that  Judge  Trumbull, 
for  instance,  has  said,  or  in  any  thing  that  I  have  said,  a  justification  at  all  compared 
with  what  we  have,  in  this  instance,  for  that  sort  of  vulgarity. 

I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  charging  as  a  matter  of  belief  on  my  part,  that,  in 
the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill  into  Congress,  there  was  a  conspiracy  to  make 
slavery  perpetual  and  national.  I  have  arranged  from  time  to  time  the  evidence 
which  establishes  and  proves  the  truth  of  this  charge.  I  recurred  to  this  charge  at 
Ottawa.  I  shall  not  now  have  time  to  dwell  upon  it  at  very  great  length  ;  but,  in- 
asmuch as  Judge  Douglas  in  his  reply  of  half  an  hour,  made  some  points  upon  me 
in  relation  to  it,  I  propose  noticing  a  few  of  them. 

The  Judge  insists  that,  in  the  first  speech  I  made,  in  which  I  very  distinctly  made 
that  charge,  he  thought  for  a  good  while  I  was  in  fun ! — that  I  was  playful — that 
1  was  not  sincere  about  it — and  that  he  only  grew  angry  and  somewhat  excited 
when  he  found  that  I  insisted  upon  it  as  a  matter  of  earnestness.  He  says  he  char- 
acterized it  as  a  falsehood  as  far  as  I  implicated  his  moral  character  in  that  transac- 
tion. Well,  I  did  not  know,  till  he  presented  that  view,  that  I  had  implicated  his 
moral  character.  He  is  very  much  in  the  habit,  when  he  argues  me  up  into  a  posi- 
tion I  never  thought  of  occupying,  of  very  cosily  saying  he  has  no  doubt  Lincoln  is 
"  conscientious  "  in  saying  so.  He  should  remember  that  I  did  not  know  but  what 
he  was  ALTOGKTIIKII  u  CONSCIENTIOUS  "  in  that  matter.  I  can  conceive  it  possible 
for  men  to  conspire  to  do  a  good  thing,  and  I  really  find  nothing  in  Judge  Douglas's 
course  or  arguments  that  is  contrary  to  or  inconsistent  with  his  belief  of  a  conspir- 
acy to  nationalize  and  spread  slavery  as  being  a  good  and  blessed  thing,  and  so  I  hopa 
he  will  understand  that  I  do  not  at  all  question  but  that  in  all  this  matter  he  is  en- 
tirely "  conscientious." 

But  to  draw  your  attention  to  one  of  the  points  I  made  in  this  case,  beginning  at 
the  beginning.  When  the  Nebraska  bill  was  introduced,  or  a  short  time  afterward, 
by  an  amendment,  I  believe,  it  was  provided  that  it  must  be  considered  "  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or  Territory, 
or  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States."  I  have  called  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  when  he 
and  some  others  began  arguing  that  they  were  giving  an  increased  degree  of  liberty 
to  the  people  in  the  Territories  over  and  above  what  they  formerly  had  on  the 
question  of  slavery,  a  question  was  raised  whether  the  law  was  enacted  to  give 
such  unconditional  liberty  to  the  people,  and  to  test  the  sincerity  of  this  mode  of 
argument,  Mr.  Chase,  of  Ohio,  introduced  an  amendment,  in  which  he  made  the 
law — if  the  amendment  were  adopted — expressly  declare  that  the  people  of  the 
Territory  should  have  the  power  to  exclude  slavery  if  they  saw  fit.  I  have  asked 
attention  also  to  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas  and  those  who  acted  with  him,  voted  that 
amendment  down,  notwithstanding  it  expressed  exactly  the  thing  they  said  was  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  law.  I  have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  sub- 
sequent times,  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  has  been  made,  in  which  it  has  been 
declared  that  a  Territorial  Legislature  has  no  constitutional  right  to  exclude  slavery. 


And  I  have  argued  and  said  that  for  men  who  did  intend  that  the  people  of  the 
Territory  should  have  the  right  to  exclude  slavery  absolutely  and  unconditionally, 
the  voting  down  of  Chase's  amendment  is  wholly  inexplicable.  It  is  a  puzzle — a 
riddle.  But  I  have  said,  that  with  men  who  did  look  forward  to  such  a  decision, 
or  who  had  it  in  contemplation,  that  such  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  would  or 
might  be  made,  the  voting  down  of  that  amendment  would  be  perfectly  rational 
and  intelligible.  It  would  keep  Congress  from  coming  in  collision  with  the  decision 
when  it  was  made.  Any  body  can  conceive  that  if  there  was  an  intention  or  ex- 
pectation that  such  a  decision  was  to  follow,  it  would  not  be  a  very  desirable  party 
attitude  to  get  into  for  the  Supreme  Court — all  or  nearly  all  its  members  belonging 
to  the  same  party — to  decide  one  way,  when  the  party  in  Congress  had  decided  the 
other  way.  Hence  it  would  be  \  ery  rational  for  men  expecting  such  a  decision,  to 
keep  the  niche  in  that  law  clear  for  it.  After  pointing  this  out,  I  tell  Judge  Douglas 
that  it  looks  to  me  as  though  here  was  the  reason  why  Chase's  amendment  wa« 
voted  down.  I  tell  him  that  as  he  did  it,  and  knows  why  he  did  it,  if  it  was  done 
for  a  reason  different  from  this,  he  knows  what  that  reason  was,  and  can  tell  us  what 
it  was.  I  tell  him,  also,  it  will  be  vastly  more  satisfactory  to  the  country  for  him  to 
give  some  other  plausible,  intelligible  reason  why  it  was  voted  down  than  to  stand 
upon  his  dignity  and  call  people  liars.  Well,  on  Saturday  he  did  make  his  answer, 
and  what  do  you  think  it  was  ?  lie  says  if  I  had  only  taken  upon  myself  to  tell 
the  whole  truth  about  that  amendment  of  Chase's,  no  explanation  would  have  been 
necessary  on  his  part — or  words  to  that  effect.  Now,  I  say  here,  that  I  am  quite  un- 
conscious of  having  suppressed  any  thing  material  to  the  case,  and  I  am  very  frank  to 
admit  if  there  is  any  sound  reason  other  than  that  which  appeared  to  me  material, 
it  is  quite  fair  for  him  to  present  it.  What  reason  does  he  propose  ?  Tliat  when 
Chase  came  forward  with  his  amendment  expressly  authorizing  the  people  to  ex- 
clude slavery  from  the  limits  of  every  Territory,  Gen.  Cass  proposed  to  Chase,  if 
he  (Chase)  would  add  to  his  amendment  that  the  people  should  have  the  power  to 
introduce  or  exclude,  they  would  let  it  go.  This  is  substantially  all  of  his  reply 
And  because  Chase  would  not  do  that,  they  voted  his  amendment  down.  Well,  il 
turns  out,  I  believe,  upon  examination,  that  General  Ca^s  took  some  part  in  the  little 
running  debate  upon  that  amendment,  and  then  ran  away  and  did  not  vote  on  it  at 
all.  Is  not  that  the  fact  ?  So  confident,  as  I  think,  was  General  Cass  that  there 
was  a  snake  somewhere  about,  he  chose  to  run  away  from  the  whole  thing.  This  is 
an  inference  I  draw  from  the  fact  that,  though  he  took  part  in  the  debate,  his  name  does 
not  appear  in  the  ayes  and  noes.  But  does  Judge  Douglas's  reply  amount  to  a  sat- 
isfactory answer?  \_ Cries  of  "yes,"  "yes,"  and  "no,"  "no/']  There  is  some  little 
difference  of  opinion  here.  But  I  ask  attention  to  a  few  more  views  bearing  on  the 
question  of  whether  it  amounts  to  a  satisfactory  answer.  The  men  who  were  de- 
termined that  that  amendment  should  riot  «;et  into  the  bill  and  spoil  the  place  where 
the  Dred  Scott  decision  was  to  come  in,  sought  an  excuse  to  get  rid  of  it  somewhere. 
One  of  these  ways — one  of  these  excuses — was  to  ask  Chase  to  add  to  his  proposed 
amendment  a  provision  that  the  people  might  introduce  slavery  if  they  wanted  to. 
They  very  well  knew  Chase  would  do  no  such  tiling — that  Mr.  Chase  was  one  of 
tli  A  men  differing  from  them  on  the  broad  principle  of  his  insisting  that  freedom  was 
better  than  slavery — a  man  who  would  not  consent  to  enact  a  law,  penned  with  m>: 
own  hand,  by  which  he  was  made  to  recognize  slavery  on  the  one  hand  and  liberty 
on  the  other  as  precisely  equal ;  and  when  they  insisted  on  his  doing  this,  they  very 
well  knew  they  insisted  on  that  which  he  would  not  for  a  moment  think  of  doing, 
and  that  they  were  only  bluffing  him.  I  believe  (I  have  not,  since  he  made  his  an- 
swer, had  a  chance  to  examine  the  journals  or  Congressional  Globe,  and  therefore 
speak  from  memory) — I  believe  the  state  of  the  bill  at  that  time,  according  to  parlia- 
mentary rules,  was  such  that  no  member  could  propose  an  additional  amendment  to 
Chase's  amendment.  I  rather  think  this  is  the  truth — the  Judge  shakes  his  head, 
Very  well.  I  would  like  to  know,  then,  if  they  wanted  Chase's  amendment  Jixed 
over,  why  somebody  else  could  not  have  offered  to  do  it  ?  If  they  wanted  it  amended. 


93 

why  did  they  not  offer  the  amendment  ?  Why  did  they  stand  there  taunting  and 
quibbling  at  Chase  ?  Why  did  they  not  put  it  in  themselves?  But  to  put  it  on  the 
other  ground ;  suppose  that  there  was  such  an  amendment  offered,  and  Chase's  was 
au  amendment  to  an  amendment ;  until  one  is  disposed  of  by  parliamentary  law, 
you  cannot  pile  another  on.  Then  all  these  gentlemen  had  to  do  was  to  vote  Chase's 
on,  and  then  in  the  amended  form  in  which  the  whole  stood,  add  their  own  amend- 
ment to  it  if  they  wanted  to  put  it  in  that  shape.  This  was  all  they  were  obliged  to 
do,  and  the  ayes  and  noes  show  that  there  were  thirty-six  who  voted  it  down,  against 
ten  who  voted  in  favor  of  it.  The  thirty-six  held  entire  sway  and  control.  They 
could  in  some  form  or  other  have  put  that  bill  in  the  exact  shape  they  wanted.  If 
tliore  was  a  rule  preventing  their  amending  it  at  the  time,  they  could  pass  that,  and 
tben  Chase's  amendment  being  merged,  put  it  in  the  shape  they  wanted.  They  did 
not  choose  to  do  so,  but  they  went  into  a  quibble  with  Chase  to  get  him  to  add  what 
they  knew  he  would  not  add,  and  because  he  would  not,  they  stand  upon  that  flimsy 
pretext  for  voting  down  what  they  argued  was  the  meaning  and  intent  of  their  own 
bill.  They  left  room  thereby  for  this  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  goes  very  far  to 
make  slavery  national  throughout  the  United  States. 

I  pass  one  or  two  points  I  have  because  my  time  will  very  soon  expire,  but  I 
must  be  allowed  to  say  that  Judge  Douglas  recurs  again,  as  he  did  upon  one  or  two 
other  occasions,  to  the  enormity  of  Lincoln — an  insignificant  individual  like  Lincoln — 
upon  his  ipse  dixit  charging  a  conspiracy  upon  a  large  number  of  members  of  Con- 
gress, the  Supreme  Court  and  two  Presidents,  to  nationalize  slavery.  I  want  to  say 
that,  in  the  first  place,  I  have  made  no  charge  of  this  sort  upon  my  ipse  dixit.  I 
have  only  arrayed  the  evidence  tending  to  prove  it,  and  presented  it  to  the  under- 
standing of  others,  saying  what  I  think  it  proves,  but  giving  you  the  means  of  judg- 
ing whether  it  proves  it  or  not.  This  is  precisely  what  I  have  done.  I  have  not 
placed  it  upon  my  ipse  dixit  at  all.  On  this  occasion,  I  wish  to  recall  his  attention  to 
a  piece  of  evidence  which  I  brought  forward  at  Ottawa  on  Saturday,  showing  that 
he  had  made  substantially  the  same  charge  against  substantially  the  same  persons, 
excluding  his  dear  self  from  the  category.  I  ask  him  to  give  some  attention  to  the 
evidence  which  I  brought  forward,  that  he  himself  had  discovered  a  4<  fatal  blow 
being  struck"  against  the  right  of  the  people  to  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits, 
which  fatal  blow  he  assumed  as  in  evidence  in  an  article  in  the  Washington  Union, 
published  "by  authority."  I  ask  by  whose  authority?  He  discovers  a  similar  or 
identical  provision  in  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  Made  by  whom?  The  framers 
of  that  Constitution,  Advocated  by  whom  ?  By  all  the  members  of  the  party  in 
the  nation,  who  advocated  the  introduction  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the 
Lecompton  Constitution. 

I  have  asked  his  attention  to  the  evidence  that  he  arrayed  to  prove  that  such  a 
fatal  blow  was  being  struck,  and  to  the  facts  which  he  brought  forward  in  support  of 
that  charge — being  identical  with  the  one  which  he  thinks  so  villainous  in  me.  He 
pointed  it  not  at  a  newspaper  editor  merely,  but  at  the  President  and  his  Cabinet 
and  the  members  of  Congress  advocating  the  Lecompton  Constitution  and  those 
framing  that  instrument.  I  must  again  be  permitted  to  remind  him,  that  although 
my  ipse  dixit  may  not  be  as  great  as  his,  yet  it  somewhat  reduces  the  force  of  his 
calling  my  attention  to  the  enormity  of  my  making  a  like  charge  against  him. 

Go  on,  Judge  Douglas. 


MR.  DOUGLAS'S  SPEECH. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  silence  with  which  you  have  listened  to  Mr. 
Lincoln  during  his  hour  is  creditable  to  this  vast  audience,  composed  of  men  of 
various  political  parties.  Nothing  is  more  honorable  to  any  large  mass  of  people 
assembled  for  the  purpose  of  a  fair  discussion,  than  that  kind  and  respectful  attention 

7 


94 

that  is  yielded  not  only  to  your  political  friends,  but  to  those  who  are  opposed  to  you 
in  politics. 

I  am  glad  that  at  last  I  have  brought  Mr.  Lincoln  to  the  conclusion  that  he  had 
better  define  his  position  on  certain  political  questions  to  winch  I  called  his  attention 
at  Ottawa.  He  there  showed  no  disposition,  no  inclination,  to  answer  them.  I  did 
not  present  idle  questions  for  him  to  answer  merely  for  my  gratification.  I  laid  the 
foundation  for  those  interrogatories  by  showing  that  they  constituted  the  platform  of 
the  party  whose  nominee  he  is  for  the  Senate.  I  did  not  presume  that  I  had  the 
right  to  catechise  him  as  I  saw  proper,  unless  I  showed  that  his  party,  or  a  majority 
of  it,  stood  upon  the  platform  and  were  in  favor  of  the  propositions  upon  which  my 
questions  were  based.  I  desired  simply  to  know,  inasmuch  as  he  had  been  nomina- 
ted as  the  first,  last,  and  only  choice  of  his  party,  whether  he  concurred  in  the  plat- 
form which  that  party  had  adopted  for  its  government.  In  a  few  moments  I  will 
proceed  to  review  the  answers  which  he  has  given  to  these  interrogatories ;  but  in 
order  to  relieve  his  anxiety  I  will  first  respond  to  these  which  he  has  presented  to 
me.  Mark  you,  he  has  not  presented  interrogatories  which  have  ever  received  the 
sanction  of  the  party  with  which  I  am  acting,  and  hence  he  has  no  other  foundation 
tor  them  than  his  own  curiosity. 

First,  he  desires  to  know  if  the  people  of  Kansas  shall  form  a  Constitution  by 
means  entirely  proper  and  unobjectionable  and  ask  admission  into  the  Union  as  a 
State,  before  they  have  the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  whether 
I  will  vote  for  that  admission.  Well,  now,  I  regret  exceedingly  that  he  did  not 
answer  that  interrogatory  himself  before  he  put  it  to  me,  in  order  that  we  might 
understand,  and  not  be  left  to  infer,  on  which  side  he  is.  Mr.  Trumbull,  during  the 
last  session  of  Congress,  voted  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  against  the  admission 
of  Oregon,  although  a  free  State,  because  she  had  not  the  requisite  population  for  a 
member  of  Congress.  Mr.  Trumbull  would  not  consent,  under  any  circumstances, 
to  let  a  State,  free  or  slave,  come  into  the  Union  until  it  had  the  requisite  population. 
As  Mr.  Trumbull  is  in  the  field,  fighting  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  I  would  like  to  have  Mr. 
Lincoln  answer  his  own  question  and  tell  me  whether  he  is  fighting  Trumbull  on  that 
issue  or  not.  But  I  will  answer  his  question.  In  reference  to  Kansas,  it  is  my 
opinion,  that  as  she  has  population  enough  to  constitute  a  slave  State,  she  has  people 
enough  for  a  free  State.  I  will  not  make  Kansas  an  exceptional  case  to  the  other 
States  of  the  Union.  I  hold  it  to  be  a  sound  rule  of  universal  application  to  require 
a  Territory  to  contain  the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  before  it 
is  admitted  as  a  State  into  the  Union.  I  made  that  proposition  in  the  Senate  in 
1856,  and  I  renewed  it  during  the  last  session,  in  a  bill  providing  that  no  Territory 
of  the  United  States  should  form  a  Constitution  and  apply  for  admission  until  it  had 
the  requisite  population.  On  another  occasion  I  proposed  that  neither  Kansas,  or 
any  other  Territory,  should  be  admitted  until  it  had  the  requisite  population.  Con- 
gress did  not  adopt  any  of  my  propositions  containing  this  general  rule,  but  did  make 
an  exception  of  Kansas.  I  will  stand  by  that  exception.  Either  Kansas  must  come 
in  as  a  free  State,  with  whatever  population  she  may  have,  or  the  rule  must  be 
applied  to  aB.  the  other  Territories  alike.  I  therefore  answer  at  once,  that  it  having 
been  decided  that  Kansas  has  people  enough  for  a  slave  State,  I  hold  that  she  has 
enough  for  a  free  State.  I  hope  Mr.  Lincoln  is  satisfied  with  my  answer ;  and  now 
I  would  like  to  get  his  answer  to  his  own  interrogatory — whether  or  not  he  will  vote 
to  admit  Kansas  before  she  has  the  requisite  population.  I  want  to  know  whether 
he  will  vote  to  admit  Oregon  before  that  Territory  has  the  requisite  population.  Mr. 
Trumbull  will  not,  and  the  same  reason  that  commits  Mr.  Trumbull  against  tJbe 
admission  of  Oregon,  commits  him  against  Kansas,  even  if  she  should  apply  for 
admission  as  a  free  State.  If  there  is  any  sincerity,  any  truth,  in  the  argument  of 
Mr.  Trumbull  in  the  Senate,  against  the  admission  of  Oregon  because  she  had  not 
93,420  people,  although  her  population  was  larger  than  that  of  Kansas,  he  stands 
pledged  against  the  admission  of  both  Oregon  and  Kansas  until  they  have  93,420 
inhabitants.  I  would  like  Mr.  Lincoln  to  answer  this  question.  I  would  like  him 


95 

to  take  his  own  medicine.  If  he  differs  with  Mr.  Trumbull,  let  him  answer  his 
argument  against  the  admission  of  Oregon,  instead  of  poking  questions  at  me. 

The  next  question  propounded  to  me  by  Mr.  Lincoln  is,  can  the  people  of  a  Ter- 
ritory in  any  lawful  way,  against  the  wishes  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  Constitution  ?  I 
answer  emphatically,  as  Mr.  Lincoln  has  heard  me  answer  a  hundred  times  from 
every  stump  in  Illinois,  that  in  my  opinion  the  people  of  a  Territory  can,  by  lawful 
means,  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  Stftte  Constitu- 
tion. Mr.  Lincoln  knew  that  I  had  answered  that  question  over  and  over  again. 
He  heard  me  argue  the  Nebraska  bill  on  that  principle  all  over  the  State  in  1854, 
in  1855,  and  in  1856,  and  he  has  no  excuse  for  pretending  to  be  in  doubt  as  to  my 
position  on  that  question.  It  matters  not  what  way  the  Supreme  Court  may  here- 
after decide  as  to  the  abstract  question  whether  slavery  may  or  may  not  go  into  a 
Territory  under  the  Constitution,  the  people  have  the  lawful  means  to  introduce  it 
or  exclude  it  as  they  please,  for  the  reason  that  slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  or  an 
hour  anywhere,  unless  it  is  supported  by  local  police  regulations.  Those  police  reg- 
ulations can  only  be  established  by  the  local  legislature,  and  if  the  people  are 
opposed  to  slavery  they  will  elect  representatives  to  that  body  who  will  by  unfriendly 
legislation  effectually  prevent  the  introduction  of  it  into  their  midst.  If,  on  the  con- 
trary, they  are  for  it,  their  legislation  will  favor  its  extension.  Hence,  no  matter 
what  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  may  be  on  that  abstract  question,  still  the 
right  of  the  people  to  make  a  slave  Territory  or  a  free  Territory  is  perfect  and 
complete  under  the  Nebraska  bill.  I  hope  Mr.  Lincoln  deems  my  answer  satisfactory 
on  that  point. 

In  this  connection,  I  will  notice  the  charge  which  he  has  introduced  in  relation  to 
Mr.  Chase's  amendment.  I  thought  that  I  had  chased  that  amendment  out  of  Mr. 
Lincoln's  brain  at  Ottawa ;  but  it  seems  that  still  haunts  his  imagination,  and  lie  is 
not  yet  satisfied.  I  had  supposed  that  he  would  be  ashamed  to  press  that  question 
further.  He  is  a  lawyer,  and  has  been  a  member  of  Congress,  and  has  occupied  his 
time  and  amused  you  by  telling  you  about  parliamentary  proceedings.  He  ought  to 
have  known  better  than  to  try  to  palm  off  his  miserable  impositions  upon  this  intelli- 
gent audience.  The  Nebraska  bill  provided  that  the  legislative  power,  and  authority 
of  the  said  Territory,  should  extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent 
with  the  organic  act  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  did  not  make  any 
exception  as  to  slavery,  but  gave  all  the  power  that  it  was  possible  for  Congress  to 
give,  without  violating  the  Constitution  to  the  Territorial  Legislature,  with  no  excep- 
tion or  limitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  at  all.  The  language  of  that  bill  which 
I  have  quoted,  gave  the  full  power  and  the  full  authority  over  the  subject  of  slavery, 
affirmatively  and  negatively,  to  introduce  it  or  exclude  it,  so  far  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  would  permit.  What  more  could  Mr.  Chase  give  by  his 
amendment  ?  Nothing.  He  offered  his  amendment  for  the  identical  purpose  for 
which  Mr.  Lincoln  is  using  it,  to  enable  demagogues  in  the  country  to  try  and  deceive 
the  people. 

His  amendment  was  to  this  effect.  It  provided  that  the  Legislature  should  have 
the  power  to  exclude  slavery:  and  General  Cass  suggested,  "why  not  give  the  power 
to  introduce  as  well  as  exclude  ?"  The  answer  was,  they  have  the  power  already  in 
the  bill  to  do  both.  Chase  was  afraid  his  amendment  would  be  adopted  if  he  put 
the  alternative  proposition  and  so  make  it  fair  both  ways,  but  would  not  yield.  He 
offered  it  for  the  purpose  of  having  it  rejected.  He  offered  it,  as  he  has  himself 
avowed  over  and  over  again,  simply  to  make  capital  out  of  it  for  the  stump.  He 
expected  that  it  would  be  capital  for  small  politicians  in  the  country,  and  that  they 
would  make  an  effort  to  deceive  the  people  with  it,  and  he  was  not  mistaken,  for  Lincoln 
is  carrying  out  the  plan  admirably.  Lincoln  knows  that  the  Nebraska  bill,  without 
Chase's  amendment,  gave  all  the  power  which  the  Constitution  would  permit.  Could 
Congress  confer  any  more?  Could  Congress  go  beyond  the  Constitution  of  the 
country?  We  gave  all  a  full  grant,  with  no  exception  in  regard  to  slavery  one 


96 

way  or  the  other.  We  left  that  question  as  we  left  all  others,  to  be  decided  by  the 
people  for  themselves,  just  as  they  pleased.  I  will  not  occupy  my  time  on  this 
question.  I  have  argued  it  before  all  over  Illinois.  I  have  argued  it  in  this  beau- 
tiful city  of  Freeport ;  I  have  argued  it  in  the  North,  the  South,  the  East,  and  the 
West,  avowing  the  same  sentiments  and  the  same  principles.  I  have  not  been 
afraid  to  avow  my  sentiments  up  here  for  fear  I  would  be  trotted  down  into  Egypt. 

The  third  question  which  Mr.  Lincoln  presented  is,  if  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  shall  decide  that  a  State  of  this  Union  cannot  exclude  slavery  from  its 
j>wr  limits,  will  I  submit  to  it?  I  am  amazed  that  Lincoln  should  ask  such  a  ques- 
tion. [  "  A  school-boy  knows  better."]  Yes,  a  school-boy  does  know  better.  Mr. 
Lincoln's  object  is  to  cast  an  imputation  upon  the  Supreme  Court.  He  knows  that 
th-Te  never  was  but  one  man  in  America,  claiming  any  degree  of  intelligence  or  de- 
cency, who  ever  for  a  moment  pretended  such  a  thing.  It  is  true  that  the  Washing- 
ton Union,  in  an  article  published  on  the  17th  of  last  December,  did  put  forth  that 
doctrine,  and  I  denounced  the  article  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  in  a  speech  which 
Mr.  Lincoln  now  pretends  was  against  the  President.  The  Union  had  claimed  that 
slavery  had  a  right  to  go  into  the  free  States,  and  that  any  provision  in  the  Constitu- 
tion or  laws  of  the  free  States  to  the  contrary  were  null  and  void.  I  denounced  it 
in  the  Senate,  as  I  said  before,  and  I  was  the  first  man  who  did.  Lin  corn's  friends, 
Trumbull,  and  Seward,  and  Hale,  and  Wilson,  and  the  whole  Black  Republican  side 
of  the  Senate,  were  silent.  They  left  it  to  me  to  denounce  it.  And  what  was  the 
reply  made  to  me  on  that  occasion  ?  Mr.  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  got  up  and  undertook 
to  lecture  me  on  the  ground  that  I  ought  not  to  have  deemed  the  article  worthy  of 
notice,  and  ought  not  to  have  replied  to  it ;  that  there  was  not  one  man,  woman  or 
child  south  of  the  Potomac,  in  any  slave  State,  who  did  not  repudiate  any  such  pre- 
tension. Mr.  Lincoln  knows  that  that  reply  was  made  on  the  spot,  and  yet  now  he 
asks  this  question.  He  might  as  well  ask  me,  suppose  Mr.  Lincoln  should  steal  a 
horse,  would  I  sanction  it ;  and  it  would  be  as  genteel  in  me  to  ask  him,  in  the  event 
lie  stole  a  horse,  what  ought  to  be  done  with  him.  He  casts  an  imputation  upon  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  by  supposing  that  they  would  violate  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States.  I  tell  him  that  such  a  thing  is  not  possible.  It  would 
be  an  act  of  moral  treason  that  no  man  on  the  bench  could  ever  descend  to.  Mr. 
Lincoln  himself  would  never  in  his  partisan  feelings  so  far  forget  what  was  right  as 
to  be  guilty  of  such  an  act. 

The  fourth  question  of  Mr.  Lincoln  is,  are  you  in  favor  of  acquiring  additional 
territory,  in  disregard  as  to  how  such  acquisition  may  affect  the  Union  on  the  slavery 
questions  ?  This  question  is  very  ingeniously  and  cunningly  put. 

The  Black  Republican  creed  lays  it  down  expressly,  that  under  no  circumstances 
sluill  we  acquire  any  more  territory  unless  slavery  is  first  prohibited  in  the  country. 
I  ask  Mr.  Lincoln  whether  he  is  in  favor  of  that  proposition.  Are  you  [addressing 
Mr.  Lincoln]  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  any  more  territory,  under  any  circum- 
stances, unless  slavery  is  prohibited  in  it?  That  he  does  not  like  to  answer.  When 
T  ask  him  whether  he  stands  up  to  that  article  in  the  platform  of  his  party,  he 
turns,  Yankee-fashion,  and  without  answering  it,  asks  me  whether  I  am  in  favor  of 
acquiring  territory  without  regard  to  how  it  may  affect  the  Union  on  the  slavery 
question.  I  answer  that  whenever  it  becomes  necessary,  in  our  growth  and  progress, 
to  acquire  more  territory,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  it,  without  reference  to  the  question 
v»i  slavery,  and  when  we  have  acquired  it,  I  will  leave  the  people  free  to  do  as  they 
please,  either  to  make  it  slave  or  free  territory,  as  they  prefer.  It  is  idle  to  tell  me 
or  you  that  we  have  territory  enough.  Our  fathers  supposed  that  we  had  enough 
when  our  territory  extended  to  the  Mississippi  river,  but  a  few  years'  growth  and 
expansion  satisfied  them  that  we  needed  more,  and  the  Louisiana  territory,  from  the 
West  branch  of  the  Mississippi  to  the  British  possessions,  was  acquired.  Then  we 
acquired  Oregon,  then  California  and  New  Mexico.  We  have  enough  now  for  the 
present,  but  this  is  a  young  and  a  growing  nation.  It  swarms  as  often  as  a  hive  of 
bees,  and  as  new  swarms  are  turned  out  each  year,  there  must  be  hives  in  which 


97 

they  can  gather  and  make  their  honey.  In  less  than  fifteen  years,  if  the  same  pro- 
gress  that  has  distinguished  this  country  for  the  last  fifteen  years  continues,  every 
foot  of  vacant  land  between  this  and  the  Pacific  ocean,  owned  by  the  United  States, 
will  be  occupied.  Will  you  not  continue  to  increase  at  the  end  of  fifteen  years  as 
well  as  now  ?  I  tell  you,  increase,  and  multiply,  and  expand,  is  the  law  of  this  na- 
tion's existence.  You  cannot  limit  this  great  Republic  by  mere  boundary  lines,  say- 
ing, "  thus  far  shalt  thou  go,  and  no  further."  Any  one  of  you  gentlemen  might  as 
well  say  to  a  son  twelve  years  old  that  he  is  big  enough,  and  must  not  grow  any  lar- 
ger, and  in  order  to  prevent  his  growth  put  a  hoop  around  him  to  keep  him  to  his 
present  size.  What  would  be  the  result  ?  Either  the  hoop  must  burst  and  be  rent 
asunder,  or  the  child  must  die.  So  it  would  be  with  this  great  nation.  With  our 
natural  increase,  growing  with  a  rapidity  unknown  in  any  other  part  of  the  globe, 
with  the  tide  of  emigration  that  is  fleeing  from  despotism  in  the  old  world  to  seek  ref- 
uge in  our  own,  there  is  a  constant  torrent  pouring  into  this  country  that  requires 
more  land,  more  territory  upon  which  to  settle,  and  just  as  fast  as  our  interests  and 
our  destiny  require  additional  territory  in  the  North,  in  the  South,  or  on  the  Islands 
of  the  ocean,  I  am  for  it,  and  when  we  acquire  it,  will  leave  the  people,  according  to 
the  Nebraska  bill,  free  to  do  as  they  please  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  every  other 
question. 

I  trust  now  that  Mr.  Lincoln  will  deem  himself  answered  on  his  four  points.  He 
racked  his  brain  so  much  in  devising  these  four  questions  that  he  exhausted  himself, 
and  had  not  strength  enough  to  invent  the  others.  As  soon  as  he  is  able  to  hold  a 
council  with  his  advisers,  Lovejoy,  Farnsworth,  and  Fred  Douglass,  he  will  frame 
and  propound  others.  [  "  Good,  good."  ]  You  Black  Republicans  who  say  good,  I 
have  no  doubt  think  that  they  are  all  good  men.  I  have  reason  to  recollect  that  some 
people  in  this  country  think  that  Fred  Douglass  is  a  very  good  man.  The  last  time 
I  came  here  to  make  a  speech,  while  talking  from  the  stand  to  you,  people  of  Free- 
port,  as  I  am  doing  to-day,  I  saw  a  carriage,  and  a  magnificent  one  it  was,  drive  up 
and  take  a  position  on  the  outside  of  the  crowd ;  a  beautiful  young  lady  was  sitting 
on  the  box-seat,  whilst  Fred  Douglass  and  her  mother  reclined  inside,  and  the  owner 
of  the  carriage  acted  as  driver.  I  saw  this  in  your  own  town.  [  "  What  of  it  ?  "  ] 
All  I  have  to  say  of  it  is  this,  that  if  you,  Black  Republicans,  think  that  the  negix> 
ought  to  be  on  a  social  equality  with  your  wives  and  daughters,  and  ride  in  a  carriage 
with  your  wife,  whilst  you  drive  the  team,  you  have  perfect  right  to  do  so.  I  am 
told  that  one  of  Fred  Douglass's  kinsmen,  another  rich  black  negro,  is  now  traveling 
in  this  part  of  the  State  making  speeches  for  his  friend  Lincoln  as  the  champion 
of  black  men.  [  "  What  have  you  to  say  against  it  ?  "]  All  I  have  to  say  on  that 
subject  is,  that'those  of  you  who  believe  that  the  negro  is  your  equal  and  ought  to  be 
on  an  equality  with  you  socially,  politically,  and  legally,  have  a  right  to  enteftain 
those  opinions,  and  of  course  will  vote  for  Mr.  Lincoln. 

I  have  a  word  to  say  on  Mr.  Lincoln's  answer  to  the  interrogatories  contained  in 
my  speech  at  Ottawa,  and  which  he  has  pretended  to  reply  to  here  to-day.  Mr. 
Lincoln  makes  a  great  parade  of  the  fact  that  I  quoted  a  platform  as  having  been 
adopted  by  the  Black  Republican  party  at  Springfield  in  1854,  which,  it  turns  out, 
was  adopted  at  another  place.  Mr.  Lincoln  loses  sight  of  the  thing  itself  in  his  ec- 
stacies  over  the  mistake  I  made  in  stating  the  place  where  it  was  done.  He  thinks 
that  that  platform  was  not  adopted  on  the  right  "  spot" 

When  I  put  the  direct  questions  to  Mr.  Lincoln  to  ascertain  whether  he  now 
stands  pledged  to  that  creed — to  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law, 
a  refusal  to  admit  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union  even  if  the  people  want 
them,  a  determination  to  apply  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  not  only  to  all  the  territory  we 
now  have,  but  all  that  we  may  hereafter  acquire,  he  refused  to  answer,  and  his  fol- 
lowers say,  in  excuse,  that  the  resolutions  upon  which  I  based  my  interrogatories 
were  not  adopted  at  the  " right  spot"  Lincoln  and  his  political  friends  are  great 
on  "spots"  In  Congress,  as  a  representative  of  this  State,  he  declared  the  Mexican 
war  to  be  unjust  and  infamous,  and  would  not  support  it,  or  acknowledge  his  own 


98 

country  to  be  right  in  the  contest,  because  he  said  that  American  blood  was  n<*i 
shed  on  American  soil  in  the  " right  spot"  And  now  he  cannot  answer  the  ques- 
tions I  put  to  him  at  Ottawa  because  the  resolutions  I  read  were  not  adopted  at  the 
u  right  spot."  It  may  be  possible  that  I  was  led  into  an  error  as  to  the  spot  on  which 
/!he  resolutions  I  then  read  were  proclaimed,  but  I  was  not,  and  am  not  in  error* as  to 
the  fact  of  their  forming  the  basis  of  the  creed  of  the  Republican  party  when  that 
party  was  first  organized.  I  will  state  to  you  the  evidence  I  had,  and  upon  which 
[  relied  for  my  statement  that  the  resolutions  in  question  were  adopted  at  Springfield 
on  the  5th  of  October,  1854.*  Although  I  was  aware  that  such  resolutions  had 
been  passed  in  this  district,  and  nearly  all  the  northern  Congressional  Districts  and 
County  Conventions,  I  had  not  noticed  whether  or  not  they  had  been  adopted  by 
any  State  Convention.  In  1856,  a  debate  arose  in  Congress  between  Major 
Thomas  L.  Harris,  of  the  Springfield  District,  and  Mr.  Norton,  of  the  Joliet  Dis- 
trict, on  political  matters  connected  with  our  State,  in  the  course  of  which,  Major 
Harris  quoted  those  resolutions  as  having  been  passed  by  the  first  Republican  State 
Convention  that  ever  assembled  in  Illinois.  I  knew  that  Major  Harris  was  re- 
markable for  his  accuracy,  that  he  was  a  very  conscientious  and  sincere  man,  and  I 
also  noticed  that  Norton  did  not  question  the  accuracy  of  this  statement.  I  therefore 
took  it  for  granted  that  it  was  so,  and  the  other  day  when  I  concluded  to  use  the 
resolutions  at  Ottawa,  I  wrote  to  Charles  H.  Lanphier,  editor  of  the  State  Register, 
at  Springfield,  calling  his  attention  to  them,  telling  him  that  I  had  been  informed 
that  Major  Harris  was  lying  sick  at  Springfield,  and  desiring  him  to  call  upon  him 
and  ascertain  all  the  facts  concerning  the  resolutions,  the  time  and  the  place  where  they 
were  adopted.  In  reply,  Mr.  Lanphier  sent  me  two  copies  of  his  paper,  which  I 
have  here.  The  first  is  a  copy  of  the  State  Register,  published  at  Springfield, 
Mr.  Lincoln's  own  town,  on  the  16th  of  October,  1854,  only  eleven  days  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  Convention,  from  which  I  desire  to  read  the  following : 

"  During  the  late  discussions  in  this  city,  Lincoln  made  a  speech,  to  which  Judge 
Douglas  replied.  In  Lincoln's  speech  he  took  the  broad  ground  that,  according  to 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  whites  and  blacks  are  equal.  From  this  he 
drew  the  conclusion,  which  he  several  times  repeated,  that  the  white  man  had  no 
right  to  pass  laws  for  the  government  of  the  black  man  without  the  nigger's  consent. 
This  speech  of  Lincoln's  was  heard  and  applauded  by  all  the  Abolitionists  assembled 
in  Springfield.  So  soon  as  Mr.  Lincoln  was  done  speaking,  Mr.  Codding  arose  and 
requested  all  the  delegates  to  the  Black  Republican  Convention  to  withdraw  into  the 
Senate  chamber.  They  did  so,  and  after  long  deliberation,  they  laid  down  the  fol- 
lowing Abolition  platform  as  the  platform  on  which  they  stood.  We  call  the  particu- 
lar Attention  of  all  our  readers  to  it." 

Then  follows  the  identical  platform,  word  for  word,  which  I  read  at  Ottawa.  Now, 
that  was  published  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  own  town,  eleven  days  after  the  Convention  was 
held,  and  it  has  remained  on  record  up  to  this  day  never  contradicted. 

When  I  quoted  the  resolutions  at  Ottawa  and  questioned  Mr.  Lincoln  in  relation 
to  them,  he  said  that  his  name  was  on  the  committee  that  reported  them,  but  he  did 
not  serve,  nor  did  he  think  he  served,  because  he  was,  or  thought  he  was,  in  Taze- 
vrell  county  at  the  time  the  Convention  was  in  session.  He  did  not  deny  that  the 
resolutions  were  passed  by  the  Springfield  Convention.  He  did  not  know  better, 
and  evidently  thought  that  they  were,  but  afterward  his  friends  declared  that  they 
had  discovered  that  they  varied  in  some  respects  from  the  resolutions  passed  by  that 
Convention.  I  have  shown  you  that  I  had  good  evidence  for  believing  that  the  res- 
olutions had  been  passed  at  Springfield.  Mr.  Lincoln  ought  to  have  known  better ; 
but  not  a  word  is  said  about  his  ignorance  on  the  subject,  whilst  I,  notwithstanding 
the  circumstances,  am  accused  of  forgery. 

Now,  I  will  show  you  that  if  I  have  made  a  mistake  as  to  the  place  where  these 
resolutions  were  adopted — and  when  I  get  down  to  Springfield  I  will  investigate  the 
matter  and  see  whether  or  not  I  have — that  the  principles  they  enunciate  were 
adopted  as  the  Black  Republican  platform  ["  white,  white"], in  the  various  counties  and 


99 

Congressional  Districts  throughout  the  north  end  of  the  State  in  1854.  This  plat- 
form was  adopted  in  nearly  every  county  that  gave  a  Black  Republican  majority  for 
the  Legislature  in  that  year,  and  here  is  a  man  [pointing  to  Mr.  Denio,  who  sat  on 
the  stand  near  Deacon  Bross]  who  knows  as  well  as  any  living  man  that  it  was  the 
creed  of  the  Black  Republican  party  at  that  time.  I  would  be  willing  to  call  Denio 
as  a  witness,  or  any  other  honest  man  belonging  to  that  party.  I  will  now  read  the 
resolutions  adopted  at  the  Rockford  Convention  on  the  30th  of  August,  1854,  which 
nominated  Washburne  for  Congress.  You  elected  him  on  the  following  platform : 

Resolved,  That  the  continued  and  increasing  aggressions  of  slavery  in  our  country  are  destructive 
of  the  best  rights  of  a  I'ree  people,  and  that  such  aggressions  cannot  be  successfully  resisted  with- 
out the  united  political  action  of  all  good  men. 

Resolved,  That  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  hold  in  their  hands  peaceful,  constitutional  and 
efficient  remedy  against  the  encroachments  of  the  slave  power,  the  ballot-box,  and,  if  that  remedy 
is  boldly  and  wisely  applied,  the  principles  of  liberty  and  eternal  justice  will  be  established. 

Resolved,  That  we  accept  this  issue  forced  upon  us  by  the  slave  power,  and,  in  defense  of  free- 
dom, will  co-operate  and  be  known  as  Republicans,  pledged  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  follow- 
ing purposes : 

To  bring  the  Administration  of  the  Government  back  to  the  control  of -first  principles  ;  to  restore 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  to  the  position  of  free  Territories  :  to  repeal  and  entirely  abrogate  the  Fugi- 
tive Slave  law  5  to  restrict  slavery  to  those  States  in  which  it  exists  ;  to  prohibit  the  admission  of 
any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union  ;  to  exclude  slavery  from  all  the  Territories  over  which  the 
General  Government  has  exclusive  jurisdiction,  and  to  resist  the  acquisition  of  any  more  Territo- 
ries unless  the  introduction  of  slavery  therein  forever  shall  have  been  prohibited. 

Resolved,  That  in  furtherance  of  these  principles  we  will  use  such  constitutional  and  lawful 
means  as  shall  seem  best  adapted  to.  their  accomplishment,  and  that  we  will  support  no  man  for 
office  under  the  General  or  State  Government  who  is  not  positively  committed  to  the  support  of 
these  principles,  and  whose  personal  character  and  conduct  is  not  a  guaranty  that  he  is  reliable 
and  shall  abjure  all  party  allegiance  and  ties. 

Resolved,  That  we  cordially  invite  persons  of  all  former  political  parties  whatever  in  favor  of 
the  object  expressed  in  the  above  resolutions  to  unite  with  us  in  carrying  them,  into  efl'ect. 

Well,  you  think  that  is  a  very  good  platform,  do  you  not  ?  If  you  do,  if  you  ap- 
prove it  now,  and  think  it  is  all  right,  you  will  not  join  with  those  men  who  say  that 
I  libel  you  by  calling  these  your  principles,  will  you  ?  Now,  Mr.  Lincoln  complains ; 
Mr.  Lincoln  charges  that  I  did  you  and  him  injustice  by  saying  that  this  was  the 
platform  of  your  party.  I  am  told  that  Washburne  made  a  speech  in  Galena  last 
night,  in  which  he  abused  me  awfully  for  bringing  to  light  thi*  platform,  on  which  he 
was  elected  to  Congress.  He  thought  that  you  had  forgotten  it,  as  he  and  Mr.  Lin- 
coln desires  to.  He  did  not  deny  but  that  you  had  adopted  it,  and  that  he  had  sub- 
scribed to  and  was  pledged  by  it,  but  he  did  not  think  it  was  fair  to  call  it  up  and 
remind  the  people  that  it  was  their  platform. 

But  I  am  glad  to  find  that  you  are  more  honest  in  your  abolitionism  than  your 
leaders,  by  avowing  that  it  is  your  platform,  and  right  in  your  opinion. 

In  the  adoption  of  that  platform,  you  not  only  declared  that  you  would  resist  the 
admission  of  any  more  slave  States,  and  work  for  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
law,  but  you  pledged  yourselves  not  to  vote  for  any  man  for  State  or  Federal  offices 
who  was  not  committed  to  these  principles.  You  were  thus  committed.  Similar 
resolutions  to  those  were  adopted  in  your  county  Convention  here,  and  now  with 
your  admissions  that  they  are  your  platform  and  embody  your  sentiments  now  as 
they  did  then,  what  do  you  think  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  your  candidate  for  the  U.  S.  Sen- 
ate, who  is  attempting  to  dodge  the  responsibility  of  this  platform,  because  it  was  act 
adopted  in  the  right  spot.  I  thought  that  it  was  adopted  in  Springfield,  but  it  turns 
out  it  was  not,  that  it  was  adopted  at  Rockford,  and  in  the  various  counties  which 
comprise  this  Congressional  District.  When  I  get  into  the  next  district,  I  will  show 
that  the  same  platform  was  adopted  there,  and  so  on  through  the  State,  until  I  nail 
the  responsibility  of  it  upon  the  back  of  the  Black  Republican  party  throughout  the 
State. 

A  voice — "  Couldn't  you  modify  and  call  it  brown  ?  " 

Mr.  Douglas — Not  a  bit.  I  thought  that  you  were  becoming  a  little  brown  when 
your  members  in  Congress  voted  for  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill,  but  since  you 


100 

have  backed  out  from  that  position  and  gone  back  to  Abolitionism,  you  are  black  and 
not  brown. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  shown  you  what  your  platform  was  in  1854.  You  still  adhere 
to  it.  The  same  platform  was  adopted  by  nearly  all  the  counties  where  the  Black 
Republican  party  had  a  majority  in  1854.  I  wish  now  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
action  of  your  representatives  in  the  Legislature  when  they  assembled  together  at 
Springfield.  In  the  first  place,  you  must  remember  that  this  was  the  organization, 
of  a  new  party.  It  is  so  declared  in  the  resolutions  themselves,  which  say  that  you 
are  going  to  dissolve  all  old  purty  ties  and  call  the  new  party  Republican.  The  old 
Whig  party  was  to  have  its  throat  cut  from  ear  to  ear,  and  the  Democratic  party 
was  to  be  annihilated  and  blotted  out  of  existence,  whilst  in  lieu  of  these  parties  the 
Black  Republican  party  was  to  be  organized  on  this  Abolition  platform.  You  know 
who  the  chief  leaders  were  in  breaking  up  and  destroying  these  two  great  parties. 
Lincoln  on  the  one  hand  and  Trumbull  on  the  other,  being  disappointed  politicians, 
and  having  retired  or  been  driven  to  obscurity  by  an  outraged  constituency  because 
of  their  political  sins,  formed  a  scheme  to  abolitionize  the  two  parties  and  lead  the 
old  line  Whigs  and  old  line  Democrats  captive,  bound  hand  and  foot,  into  the  Ab- 
olition camp.  Giddings,  Chase,  Fred  Douglass  and  Lovejoy  were  here  to  christen 
them  whenever  they  Avere  brought  in.  Lincoln  went  to  work  to  dissolve  the  old 
line  Whig  party.  Clay  was  dead,  and  although  the  sod  was  not  yet  green  on  his 
grave,  this  man  undertook  to  bring  into  disrepute  those  great  Compromise  measures 
of  1850,  with  which  Clay  and  Webster  were  identified.  Up  to  1854  the  old  Whig 
party  and  the  Democratic  party  had  stood  on  a  common  platform  so  far  as  this  sla- 
very question  was  concerned.  You  Whigs  and  we  Democrats  differed  about  the 
bank,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the  specie  circular  and  the  sub-treasury,  but  we  agreed 
on  this  slavery  question  and  the  true  mode  of  preserving  the  peace  and  harmony  of 
the  Union.  The  Compromise  measures  of  1850  were  introduced  by  Clay,  were  de- 
fended by  Webster,  and  supported  by  Cass,  and  were  approved  by  Fillmore,  and 
sanctioned  by  the  National  men  of  both  parties.  They  constituted  a  common  plank 
upon  which  both  Whigs  and  Democrats  stood.  In  1852  the  Whig  party,  in  its  last 
National  Convention  at  Baltimore,  indorsed  and  approved  these  measures  of  Clay, 
and  so  did  the  National  Convention  of  the  Democratic  party  held  that  same  year. 
Thus  the  old  line  Whigs  and  the  old  line  Democrats  stood  pledged  to  the  great 
principle  of  self-government,  which  guaranties  to  the  people  of  each  Territory  the 
right  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves.  In  1854,  after  the  death  of 
Clay  and  Webster,  Mr.  Lincoln,  on  the  part  of  the  Whigs,  undertook  to  Abolitionize 
the  Whig  party,  by  dissolving  it,  transferring  the  members  into  the  Abolition  camp 
and  making  them  train  under  Giddings,  Fred  Douglass,  Lovejoy,  Chase,  Farnsworth, 
and  other  Abolition  leaders.  Trumbull  undertook  to  dissolve  the  Democratic  party 
by  taking  old  Democrats  into  the  Abolition  camp.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  aided  in  his 
efforts  by  many  leading  WThigs  throughout  the  State.  Your  member  of  Congress, 
Mr.  Washburne,  being  one  of  the  most  active.  Trumbull  was  aided  by  many  rene- 
gades from  the  Democratic  party,  among  whom  were  John  Wentworth,  Tom  Turner, 
and  others,  with  whom  you  are  familiar. 

[Mr.  Turner,  who  was  one  of  the  moderators,  here  interposed  and  said  that  he 
had  drawn  the  resolutions  which  Senator  Douglas  had  read.] 

Mr.  Douglas. — Yes,  and  Turner  says  that  he  drew  these  resolutions.  ["  Hurra 
for  Turner,"  "  Hurra  for  Douglas."]  That  is  right,  give  Turner  cheers  for  drawing 
the  resolutions  if  you  approve  them.  If  he  drew  those  resolutions  he  will  not  deny 
that  they  are  the  creed  of  the  Black  Republican  party. 

Mr.  Turner — "  They  are  our  creed  exactly." 

Mr.  Douglas — And  yet  Lincoln  denies  that  he  stands  on  them.  Mr.  Turner  says 
that  the  creed  of  the  Black  Republican  party  is  the  admission  of  no  more  slave 
States,  and  yet  Mr.  Lincoln  declares  that  he  would  not  like  to  be  placed  in  a  position 
where  he  would  have  to  vote  for  them.  All  I  have  to  say  to  friend  Lincoln  is,  that 
I  do  not  think  there  is  much  danger  of  his  being  placed  in  such  a  position.  As  Mr. 


101 

Lincoln  would  be  very  sorry  to  be  placed  in  such  an  embarrassing  position  as  to  be 
obliged  to  vote  on  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States,  I  propose,  out  of  mere 
kindness,  to  relieve  him  from  any  such  necessity. 

When  the  bargain  between  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  was  completed  for  Abolitionizing 
the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties,  they  "  spread  "  over  the  State,  Lincoln  still  pre- 
tending to  be  an  old  line  Whig,  in  order  to  "  rope  in  "  the  Whigs,  and  Trumbull 
pretending  to  be  as  good  a  Democrat  as  he  ever  was,  in  order  to  coax  the  Democrats 
over  into  the  Abolition  ranks.  They  played  the  part  that  "  decoy  ducks "  play 
down  on  the  Potomac  river.  In  that  part  of  the  country  they  make  artificial  ducks 
and  put  them  on  the  water  in  places  where  the  wild  ducks  are  to  be  found,  for  the 
purpose  of  decoying  them.  Well,  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  played  the  part  of  these 
**  decoy  ducks "  and  deceived  enough  old  line  Whigs  and  old  line  Democrats  to 
elect  a  Black  Republican  Legislature.  When  that  Legislature  met,  the  first  thing 
it  did  was  to  elect  as  Speaker  of  the  House,  the  very  man  who  is  now  boasting  that 
he  wrote  the  Abolition  platform  on  which  Lincoln  will  not  stand.  I  want  to  know 
of  Mr.  Turner  whether  or  not,  when  he  was  elected,  he  was  a  good  embodiment  of 
Republican  principles  ? 

Mr.  Turner — "  I  hope  I  was  then  and  am  now." 

Mr.  Douglas — He  swears  that  he  hopes  he  was  then  and  is  now.  He  wrote  that 
Black  Republican  platform,  and  is  satisfied  with  it  now.  I  admire  and  acknowledge 
Turner's  honesty.  Every  man  of  you  know  that  what  he  says  about  these  resolu- 
tions being  the  platform  of  the  Black  Republican  party  is  true,  and  you  also  know 
that  each  one  of  these  men  who  are  shuffling  and  trying  to  deny  it  are  only  trying 
to  cheat  the  people  out  of  their  votes  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  them  still  more 
after  the  election.  I  propose  to  trace  this  thing  a  little  further,  in  order  that  you 
can  see  what  additional  evidence  there  is  to  fasten  this  revolutionary  platform  upon 
the  Black  Republican  party.  When  the  Legislature  assembled,  there  was  an  United 
States  Senator  to  elect  in  the  place  of  Gen.  Shields,  and  before  they  proceeded  to 
ballot,  Lovejoy  insisted  on  laying  down  certain  principles  by  which  to  govern  the 
party.  It  has  been  published  to  the  world  and  satisfactorily  proven  that  there  was, 
at  the  time  the  alliance  was  made  between  Trumbull  and  Lincoln  to  Abolition} ze 
the  two  parties,  an  agreement  that  Lincoln  should  take  Shields's  place  in  the  United 
States  Senate,  and  Trumbull  should  have  mine  so  soon  as  they  could  conveniently 
get  rid  of  me.  When  Lincoln  was  beaten  for  Shields's  place,  in  a  manner  I  will 
refer  to  in  a  few  minutes,  he  felt  very  sore  and  restive ;  his  friends  grumbled,  and 
some  of  them  came  out  and  charged  that  the  most  infamous  treachery  had  been  prac- 
ticed against  him  ;  that  the  bargain  was  that  Lincoln  was  to  have  had  Shields's  place, 
and  Trumbull  was  to  have  waited  for  mine,  but  that  Trumbull  having  the  control  of 
a  few  Abolitionized  Democrats,  he  prevented  them  from  voting  for  Lincoln,  thus 
keeping  him  within  a  few  votes  of  an  election  until  he  succeeded  in  forcing  the  party 
to  drop  him  and  elect  Trumbull.  Well,  Trumbull  having  cheated  Lincoln,  his  friends 
made  a  fuss,  and  in  order  to  keep  them  and  Lincoln  quiet,  the  party  were  obliged  to 
come  forward,  in  advance,  at  the  last  State  election,  and  make  a  pledge  that  they 
would  go  for  Lincoln  and  nobody  else.  Lincoln  could  not  be  silenced  in  any  other 
way. 

Now,  there  are  a  great  many  Black  Republicans  of  you  who  do  not  know  this 
thing  was  done.  ["White,  white,"  and  great  clamor.]  I  wish  to  remind  you  that  while 
Mr  Lincoln  was  speaking  there  was  not  a  Democrat  vulgar  and  blackguard  enough 
to  interrupt  him.  But  I  know  that  the  shoe  is  pinching  you.  I  am  clinching  Lin- 
coln now,  and  you  are  scared  to  death  for  the  result.  I  have  seen  this  thing  be- 
fore. I  have  seen  men  make  appointments  for  joint  discussions,  and  the  moment 
their  man  has  been  heard,  try  to  interrupt  and  prevent  a  fair  hearing  of  the  other 
side.  I  have  seen  your  mobs  before,  and  defy  your  wrath.  [Tremendous  ap- 
plause.] My  friends,  do  not  cheer,  for  I  need  my  whole  time.  The  object  of  the 
opposition  is  to  occupy  my  attention  in  order  to  prevent  me  from  giving  the  whole 
evidence  and  nailing  this  double  dealing  on  the  Black  Republican  party.  As  I  have- 


102 

before  said,  Lovejoy  demanded  a  declaration  of  principles  on  the  part  of  the  Black 
Republicans  of  the  Legislature  before  going  into  an  election  for  United  States  Sen- 
ator. He  offered  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions  which  I  hold  in  my  hand: 

WHEREAS.  Human  slavery  is  a  violation  of  the  principles  of  natural  and  revealed  rights  ;  arid 
whereas,  the  fathers  of  the  Revolution,  fully  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  these  principles,  declared 
freedom  to  be  the  inalienable  birthright  of  all  men ;  and  whereas,  the  preamble  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  avers  that  that  instrument  was  ordained  to  establish  justice,  and  secure 
the  blessings  of  libery  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity  ;  and  whereas,  in  furtherance  of  the  above 
principles,  slavery  was  forever  prohibited  in  the  old  North-west  Territory,  and  more  recently  in 
all  that  Territory  lying  west  and  north  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  by  the  act  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment ;  and  whereas,  the  repeal  of  the  prohition  last  referred  to,  was  contrary  to  the  wishes  of 
the  people  of  Illinois,  a  violation  of  an  implied  compact,  long  deemed  sacred  by  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  and  a  wide  departure  from  the  uniform  action  of  the  General  Government  in 
relation  to  the  extension  of  slavery  ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  Senate  concurring  therein,  That  our  Senators  in  Congress 
be  instructed,  and  our  Representatives  requested  to  introduce,  if  not  otherwise  introduced,  and  to 
vote  for  a  bill  to  restore  such  prohibition  to  the  aforesaid  Territories,  and  also  to  extend  a  similar 
prohibition  to  all  territory  which  now  belongs  to  the  United  States,  or  which  may  hereafter  come 
under  their  jurisdiction. 

Resolved,  That  our  Senators  in  Congress  be  instructed,  and  our  Representatives  requested,  to 
vote  against  the  admission  of  any  State  into  the  Union,  the  Constitution  of  which  does  not  pro- 
hibit slavery,  whether  the  territory  out  of  which  such  State  may  have  been  formed  shall 
have  been  acquired  by  conquest,  treaty,  purchase,  or  from  original  territory  of  the  United 
States. 

Resolved,  That  our  Senators  in  Congress  be  instructed,  and  our  Representatives  requested,  to 
introduce  and  vote  for  a  bill  to  repeal  an  act  entitled  "  an  act  respecting  fugitives  from  justice 
and  persons  escaping  from  the  service  of  their  masters  ;  and,  failing  in  that,  for  such  a  modification 
of  it  as  shall  secure  the  right  of  habeas  corpus  and  trial  by  jury  before  the  regularly-constituted 
authorities  of  the  State,  to  all  persons  claimed  as  owing  service'or  labor. 

Those  resolutions  were  introduced  by  Mr.  Lovejoy  immediatey  preceding  the 
election  of  Senator.  They  declared  first,  that  the  Wilinot  Proviso  must  be  applied 
to  all  territory  north  of  36  deg.  30  min.  Secondly,  that  it  must  be  applied  to  all 
territory  south  of  36  deg.  30  rnin.  Thirdly,  that  it  must  be  applied  to  all  the  ter- 
ritory now  owned  by  the  United  States,  and  finally,  that  it  must  be  applied  to  all 
territory  hereafter  to  be  acquired  by  the  United  States.  The  next  resolution  declares 
that  no  more  slave  States  shall  be  admitted  into  this  Union  under  any  circumstances 
whatever,  no  matter  whether  they  are  formed  out  of  territory  now  owned  by  us  or 
that  we  may  hereafter  acquire,  by  treaty,  by  Congress,  or  in  any  manner  whatever. 
The  next  resolution  demands  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  al- 
though its  unconditional  repeal  would  leave  no  provision  for  carrying  out  that  clause 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  guaranties  the  surrender  of  fugitives. 
If  they  could  not  get  an  unconditional  repeal,  they  demanded  that  that  law  should  be 
so  modified  as  to  make  it  as  nearly  useless  as  possible.  Now,  I  want  to  show  you  who 
voted  for  these  resolutions.  When  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  first  resolution  it  was 
decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas  41,  nays  32.  You  will  find  that  this  is  a  stricl 
party  vote,  between  the  Democrats  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Black  Republicans  on 
the  other.  [Cries  of  "  White,  white,"  and  clamor.]  I  know  your  name,  and  always 
call  things  by  their  right  name.  The  point  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to,  is  this : 
that  these  resolutions  were  adopted  on  the  7th  day  of  February,  and  that  on  the  8th 
the)-  went  into  an  election  for  a  United  States  Senator,  and  that  day  every  man  who 
voted  for  these  resolutions,  with  but  two  exceptions,  voted  for  Lincoln  for  the 
United  States  Senate.  ["  Give  us  their  names."]  I  will  read  the  names  over  to  you 
if  you  want  them,  but  I  believe  your  object  is  to  occupy  my  time. 

On  the  next  resolution  the  vote  stood — yeas  33,  nays  40,  and  on  the  third  resolution 
— yeas  35,  nays  47.  I  wish  to  impress  it  upon  you,  that  every  man  who  voted  for  those 
resolutions,  with  but  two  exceptions,  voted  on  the  next  day  for  Lincoln  for  U.  S.  Senator. 
Bear  in  mind  that  the  members  who  thus  voted  for  Lincoln  were  elected  to  the  Leg- 
islature pledged  to  vote  for  no  man  for  office  under  the  State  or  Federal  Govern- 
ment who  was  not  committed  to  this  Black  Republican  platform.  They  were  all  so 
*  pledged.  Mr.  Turner,  who  stands  by  me,  and  who  then  represented  you,  and  who 


103 

says  that  he  wrote  those  resolutions,  voted  for  Lincoln,  when  he  was  pledged  not  to 
do  so  unless  Lincoln  was  in  favor  of  those  resolutions.  I  now  ask  Mr.  Turner 
[turning  to  Mr.  Turner],  did  you  violate  your  pledge  in  voting  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  or 
did  he  commit  himself  to  your  platform  before  you  cast  your  vote  for  him  ? 

I  could  go  through  the  whole  list  of  names  here  and  show  you  that  all  the  Black 
Republicans  in  the  Legislature,  who  voted  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  had  voted  on  the  day 
previous  for  these  resolutions.  For  instance,  here  are  the  names  of  Sargent  and 
Little  of  Jo  Daviess  and  Carroll,  Thomas  J.  Turner  of  Stephenson,  Lawrence  of 
Boone  and  McHeriry,  Swan  of  Lake,  Pinckney  of  Ogle  county,  and  Lynian  of 
Winnebago.  Thus  you  see  every  member  from  your  Congressional  District  voted 
for  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  they  were  pledged  not  to  vote  for  him  unless  he  was  committed 
to  the  doctrine  of  no  more  slave  States,  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories, 
an<?  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you  to-day  that  he  is 
not  pledged  to  any  such  doctrine.  Either  Mr.  Lincoln  was  then  committed  to  those 
propositions,  or  Mr.  Turner  violated  his  pledges  to  you  when  he  voted  for  him. 
Either  Lincoln  was  pledged  to  each  one  of  those  propositions,  or  else  every  Black  Re- 
publican Representative  from  this  Congressional  District  violated  his  pledge  of  honor 
to  his  constituents  by  voting  for  him.  I  ask  you  which  horn  of  the  dilemma  will  you 
take?  Will  you  hold  Lincoln  up  to  the  platform  of  his  party,  or  will  you  accuse  every 
Representative  you  had  in  the  Legislature  of  violating  his  pledge  of  honor  to  his  con- 
stituents? There  is  no  escape  for  you.  Either  Mr.  Lincoln  was  committed  to  those 
propositions,  or  your  members  violated  their  faith.  Take  either  horn  of  the  dilemma 
you  choose.  There  is  no  dodging  the  question ;  I  want  Lincoln's  answer.  He  says 
he  was  not  pledged  to  repeal  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  that  he  does  not  quite  like  to  do 
it ;  he  will  not  introduce  a  law  to  repeal  it,  but  thinks  there  ought  to  be  some  law ; 
he  does  not  tell  what  it  ought  to  be ;  upon  the  whole,  he  is  altogether  undecided, 
and  don't  know  what  to  think  or  do.  That  is  the  substance  of  his  answer  upon  the 
repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  I  put  the  question  to  him  distinctly,  whether  he  in- 
dorsed that  part  of  the  Black  Republican  platform  which  calls  for  the  entire  abroga- 
tion and  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  He  answers  no !  that  he  does  not  indorse 
that,  but  he  does  not  tell  what  he  is  for,  or  what  he  will  vote  for.  His  answer 
is,  in  fact,  no  answer  at  all.  Why  cannot  he  speak  out  and  say  what  he  is  for  and 
what  lie  will  do  ? 

In  regard  to  there  being  no  more  slave  States,  he  is  not  pledged  to  that.  He 
would  not  like,  he  says,  to  be  put  in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to  vote  one  way 
or  another  upon  that  question.  I  pray  you,  do  not  put  him  in  a  position  that  would 
embarrass  him  so  much.  Gentlemen,  if  he  goes  to  the  Senate,  he  may  be  put  in 
that  position,  and  then  which  way  will  he  vote  ? 

[A  Voice — "  How  will  you  vote  ?"] 

Mr.  Douglas — I  will  vote  for  the  admission  of  just  such  a  State  as  by  the  form 
of  their  Constitution  the  people  show  they  want ;  if  they  want  slavery,  they  shall 
have  it ;  if  they  prohibit  slavery  it  shall  be  prohibited.  They  can  form  their  insti- 
tutions to  please  themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  ;  and  I  for  one  stand 
ready  to  receive  them  into  the  Union.  Why  cannot  your  Black  Republican  candi- 
dates talk  out  as  plain  as  that  when  they  are  questioned  ? 

I  do  not  want  to  cheat  any  man  out  of  his  vote.  No  man  is  deceived  in  regard 
to  my  principles  if  I  have  the  power  to  express  myself  in  terms  explicit  enough  to 
convey  my  ideas. 

Mr.  Lincoln  made  a  speech  when  he  was  nominated  for  the  United  States  Senate 
which  covers  all  these  Abolition  platforms.  He  there  lays  down  a  proposition  so 
broad  in  its  abolitionism  as  to  cover  the  whole  ground. 

<;  In  my  opinion  it  [the  slavery  agitation]  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have 
been  reached  and  passed.  '  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe 
this  Government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not 
expect  the  house  to  fall — but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become 
all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  Slavery  will  arrest  the  fur- 


104 

ther  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  »i 
is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  till  it 
shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States — old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as 
South." 

There  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  lays  down  the  doctrine  that  this  Union  cannot 
endure  divided  as  our  fathers  made  it,  with  free  and  slave  States.  He  says  they 
must  all  become  one  thing,  or  aU  the  other  ;  that  they  must  all  be  free  or  all  slave, 
or  else  the  Union  cannot  continue  to  exist.  It  being  his  opinion  that  to  admit  any 
more  slave  States,  to  continue  to  divide  the  Union  into  free  and  slave  States,  will 
dissolve  it  I  want  to  know  of  Mr.  Lincoln  whether  he  will  vote  for  the  admission 
of  another  slave  State. 

He  tells  you  the  Union  cannot  exist  unless  the  States  are  all  free  or  all  slave ;  he 
tells  you  that  he  is  opposed  to  making  them  all  slave,  and  hence  he  is  for  making 
them  all  free,  in  order  that  the  Union  may  exist ;  and  yet  he  will  not  say  that  he 
will  not  vote  against  another  slave  State,  knowing  that  the  Union  must  be  dissolved 
if  he  votes  for  it.  I  ask  you  if  that  is  fair  dealing  ?  The  true  intent  and  inevitable 
conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  his  first  Springfield  speech  is,  that  he  is  opposed  to  the 
admission  of  any  more  slave  States  under  any  circumstance.  If  he  is  so  opposed, 
why  not  say  so  ?  If  he  believes  this  Union  cannot  endure  divided  into  free  and 
slave  States,  that  they  must  all  become  free  in  order  to  save  the  Union,  he  is  bound 
as  an  honest  man,  to  vote  against  any  more  slave  States.  If  he  believes  it  he  is 
bound  to  do  it.  Show  me  that  it  is  my  duty  in  order  to  save  the  Union  to  do  a  par- 
ticular act,  and  I  will  do  it  if  the  Constitution  does  not  prohibit  it.  I  am  not  for  the 
dissolution  of  the  Union  under  any  circumstances.  I  will  pursue  no  course  of  con- 
duct that  will  give  just  cause  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  The  hope  of  the 
friends  of  freedom  throughout  the  world  rests  upon  the  perpetuity  of  this  Union. 
The  down-trodden  and  oppressed  people  who  are  suffering  under  European  despot- 
ism all  look  with  hope  and  anxiety  to  the  American  Union  as  the  only  resting  place 
and  permanent  home  of  freedom  and  self-government. 

Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  he  believes  that  this  Union  cannot  continue  to  endure  with 
slave  States  in  it,  and  yet  he  will  not  tell  you  distinctly  whether  he  will  vote  for  or 
against  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States,  but  says  he  would  not  like  to  be  put 
to  the  test.  I  do  not  think  he  will  be  put  to  the  test.  I  do  not  think  that  the  people 
of  Illinois  desire  a  man  to  represent  them  who  would  not  like  to  be  put  to  the  test  on 
the  performance  of  a  high  constitutional  duty.  I  will  retire  in  shame  from  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  United  States  when  I  am  not  willing  to  be  put  to  the  test  in  the  perform- 
ance of  my  duty.  I  have  been  put  to  severe  tests.  I  have  stood  by  my  principles 
in  fair  weather  and  in  foul,  in  the  sunshine  and  in  the  rain.  I  have  defended  the 
great  principles  of  self-government  here  among  you  when  Northern  sentiment  ran  in 
a  torrent  against  me,  and  I  have  defended  that  same  great  principle  when  Southern 
sentiment  came  down  like  an  avalanche  upon  me.  I  was  not  afraid  of  any  test  they 
put  to  me.  I  knew  I  was  right — I  knew  my  principles  were  sound — I  knew  that  the 
people  would  see  in  the  end  that  I  had  done  right,  and  I  knew  that  the  God  of 
Heaven  would  smile  upon  me  if  I  was  faithful  in  the  performance  of  my  duty. 

Mr.  Lincoln  makes  a  charge  of  corruption  against  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  and  two  Presidents  of  the  United  States,  and  attempts  to  bolster  it  up 
by  saying  that  I  did  the  same  against  the  Washington  Union.  Suppose  I  did  make 
that  charge  of  corruption  against  the  Washington  Union,  when  it  was  true,  does  that 
justify  him  in  making  a  false  charge  against  me  and  others  ?  That  is  the  question  I 
would  put.  He  says  that  at  the  time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  introduced,  and  before  it 
was  passed,  there  was  a  conspiracy  between  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Pres- 
ident Pierce,  President  Buchanan  and  myself  by  that  bill,  and  the  decision  of  the 
court  to  break  down  the  barrier  and  establish  slavery  all  over  the  Union.  Does  he 
not  know  that  that  charge  is  historically  false  as  against  President  Buchanan  ?  He 
knows  that  Mr.  Buchanan  was  at  that  time  in  England,  representing  this  country 
with  distinguished  ability  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  that  he  was  there  for  a  long 


106 

time  before,  and  did  not  return  for  a  year  or  more  after.  He  knows  that  to  be  true, 
and  that  fact  proves  his  charge  to  be  false  as  against  Mr.  Buchanan.  Then  again,  I 
wish  to  call  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  at  the  time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  passed,  the 
Dred  Scott  case  was  not  before  the  Supreme  Court  at  all ;  it  was  not  upon  the  docket 
of  the  Supreme  Court ;  it  had  not  been  brought  there,  and  the  Judges  in  all  proba- 
bility knew  nothing  of  it.  Thus  the  history  of  the  country  proves  the  charge  to  be 
false  as  against  them.  As  to  President  Pierce,  his  high  character  as  a  man  cf  in- 
tegrity and  honor  is  enough  to  vindicate  him  from  snch  a  charge ;  and  as  to  myself, 
I  pronounce  the  charge  an  infamous  lie,  whenever  and  wherever  made,  and  by  whom- 
soever made.  I  am  willing  that  Mr.  Lincoln  should  go  and  rake  up  every  public  act 
of  mine,  every  measure  I  have  introduced,  report  I  have  made,  speech  delivered, 
and  criticise  them,  but  when  he  charges  upon  me  a  corrupt  conspiracy  for  the  pur- 
pose of  perverting  the  institutions  of  the  country,  I  brand  it  as  it  deserves.  I  say 
the  history  of  the  country  proves  it  to  be  false,  and  that  it  could  not  have  been  pos- 
sible at  the  time.  But  now  he  tries  to  protect  himself  in  this  charge,  because  I  made 
a  charge  against  the  Washington  Union.  My  speech  in  the  Senate  against  the 
Washington  Union  was  made  because  it  advocated  a  revolutionary  doctrine,  by  de- 
claring that  the  free  States  had  not  the  right  to  prohibit  slavery  within  their  own 
limits.  Because  I  made  that  charge  against  the  Washington  Union,  Mr.  Lincoln 
says  it  was  a  charge  against  Mr.  Buchanan.  Suppose  it  was  ;  is  Mr.  Lincoln  the 
peculiar  defender  of  Mr.  Buchanan  ?  Is  he  so  interested  in  the  Federal  Adminis- 
tration, and  so  bound  to  it,  that  he  must  jump  to  the  rescue  and  defend  it  from  every 
attack  that  I  may  make  against  it  ?  I  understand  the  whole  thing.  The  Washing- 
ton Union,  under  that  most  corrupt  of  all  men,  Cornelius  Wendell,  is  advocating  Mr. 
Lincoln's  claim  to  the  Senate.  Wendell  was  the  printer  of  the  last  Black  Republican 
House  of  Representatives  ;  he  was  a  candidate  before  the  present  Democratic  House, 
but  was  ignominiously  kicked  out,  and  then  he  took  the  money  which  he  had  made 
out  of  the  public  printing  by  means  of  the  Black  Republicans,  bought  the  Washing- 
ton Union,  and  is  now  publishing  it  in  the  name  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  advo- 
cating Mr.  Lincoln's  election  to  the  Senate.  Mr.  Lincoln  therefore  considers  an  at- 
tack upon  Wendell  and  his  corrupt  gang  as  a  personal  attack  upon  him.  This  only 
proves  what  I  have  charged,  that  there  is  an  alliance  between  Lincoln  and  his  sup- 
porters, and  the  Federal  office-holders  of  this  State,  and  Presidential  aspirants  out 
of  it,  to  break  me  down  at  home. 

Mr.  Lincoln  feels  bound  to  come  in  to  the  rescue  of  the  Washington  Union.  In 
that  speech  which  I  delivered  in  answer  to  the  Washington  Union,  I  made  it  dis- 
tinctly against  the  Union,  and  against  the  Union  alone.  I  did  not  choose  to  go  be- 
yond that.  If  I  have  occasion  to  attack  the  President's  conduct,  I  will  do  it  in  lan- 
guage that  will  not  be  misunderstood.  When  I  differed  with  the  President,  I  spoke 
out  so  that  you  all  heard  me.  That  question  passed  away  ;  it  resulted  in  the  triumph 
of  my  principle  by  allowing  the  people  to  do  as  they  please,  and  there  is  an  end  of 
the  controversy.  Whenever  the  great  principle  of  self-government — the  right  of  the 
people  to  make  their  own  Constitution,  and  come  into  the  Union  with  slavery  or  with- 
out it,  as  they  see  proper,  shall  again  arise,  you  will  find  me  standing  firm  in  defense 
of  that  principle,  and  fighting  whoever  fights  it.  If  Mr.  Buchanan  stands,  as  I  doubt 
not  he  will,  by  the  recommendation  contained  in  his  Message,  that  hereafter  all  State 
Constitutions  ought  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  before  the  admission  of  the  State 
itito  the  Union,  he  will  find  me  standing  by  him  firmly,  shoulder  to  shoulder,  in  car- 
rying it  out  I  know  Mr.  Lincoln's  object ;  he  wants  to  divide  the  Democratic  party, 
in  order  that  he  may  defeat  me  and  get  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Douglas's  time  here  expired,  and  he  stopped  on  the  moment 


106 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  REJOINDER. 

MY  FRIENDS  :  It  will  readily  occur  to  you  that  I  cannot,  in  half  an  hour,  notice 
all  the  things  that  so  able  a  man  as  Judge  Douglas  can  say  in  an  hour  and  a  half; 
and  I  hope,  therefore,  if  there  be  any  thing  that  he  has  said  upon  which  you  would 
like  to  hear  something  from  me,  but  which  I  omit  to  comment  upon,  you  will  bear  in 
mind  that  it  would  be  expecting  an  impossibility  for  me  to  go  over  his  whole  ground. 
I  can  but  take  up  some  of  the  points  that  he  has  dwelt  upon,  and  employ  my  half- 
hour  specially  on  them. 

The  first  thing  I  have  to  say  to  you  is  a  word  in  regard  to  Judge  Douglas's  dec- 
laration about  the  "vulgarity  and  blackguardism"  in  the  audience — that  no  such 
thing,  as  he  says,  was  shown  by  any  Democrat  while  I  was  speaking.  Now,  I  only 
wish,  by  way  of  reply  on  this  subject,  to  say  that  while  /  was  speaking,  /  used  no 
"  vulgarity  or  blackguardism "  toward  any  Democrat. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  come  to  all  this  long  portion  of  the  Judge's  speech — perhaps 
half  of  it — which  he  has  devoted  to  the  various  resolutions  and  platforms  that  have 
been  adopted  in  the  different  counties  in  the  different  Congressional  Districts,  and  in 
the  Illinois  Legislature — which  he  supposes  are  at  variance  with  the  positions  I  have 
assumed  before  you  to-day.  It  is  true  that  many  of  these  resolutions  are  at  variance 
with  the  positions  I  have  here  assumed.  All  I  have  to  ask  is  that  we  talk  reasona- 
bly and  rationally  about  it.  I  happen  to  know,  the  Judge's  opinion  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding,  that  I  have  never  tried  to  conceal  my  opinions,  nor  tried  to  deceive 
any  one  in  reference  to  them.  He  may  go  and  examine  all  the  members  who  voted 
for  me  for  United  States  Senator  in  1855,  after  the  election  of  1854.  They  were 
pledged  to  certain  things  here  at  home,  and  were  determined  to  have  pledges  from 
me,  and  if  he  will  find  any  of  these  persons  who  will  tell  him  any  thing  inconsistent 
with  what  I  say  now,  I  will  resign,  or  rather  retire  from  the  race,  and  give  him  no 
more  trouble.  The  plain  truth  is  this :  At  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  policy, 
we  believed  there  was  a  new  era  being  introduced  in  the  history  of  the  Republic, 
which  tended  to  the  spread  and  perpetuation  of  slavery.  But  in  our  opposition  to 
that  measure  we  did  not  agree  with  one  another  in  every  thing.  The  people  in  the 
north  end  of  the  State  were  for  stronger  measures  of  opposition  than  we  of  the  cen- 
tral and  Southern  portions  of ,  the  State,  but  we  were  all  opposed  to  the  Nebraska 
doctrine.  We  had  that  one  feeling  and  that  one  sentiment  in  common.  You  at  the 
north  end  met  in  your  Conventions  and  passed  your  resolutions.  We  in  the  middle 
of  the  State  and  further  south  did  not  hold  such  Conventions  and  pass  the  same  res- 
olutions, although  we  had  in  general  a  common  view  and  a  common  sentiment.  So 
that  these  meetings  which  the  Judge  has  alluded  to,  and  the  resolutions  he  has  read 
from,  were  local,  and  did  not  spread  over  the  whole  State.  We  at  last  met  together 
in  1856,  from  all  parts  of  the  State,  and  we  agreed  upon  a  common  platform.  You, 
who  held  more  extreme  notions,  either  yielded  those  notions,  or  if  not  wholly  yield- 
ing them,  agreed  to  yield  them  practically,  for  the  sake  of  embodying  the  opposition 
to  the  measures  which  the  opposite  party  were  pushing  forward  at  that  time.  We 
met  you  then,  and  if  there  was  any  thing  yielded,  it  was  for  practical  purposes.  We 
agreed  then  upon  a  platform  for  the  party  throughout  the  entire  State  of  Illinois,  and 
now  we  are  all  bound  as  a  party,  to  that  platform.  And  I  say  here  to  you,  if  any 
one  expects  of  me — in  the  case  of  my  election — that  I  will  do  any  thing  not  signified 
by  our  Republican  platform  and  my  answers  here  to-day,  I  tell  you  very  frankly 
that  person  will  be  deceived.  I  do  not  ask  for  the  vote  of  any  one  who  supposes 
that  I  have  secret  purposes  or  pledges  that  I  dare  not  speak  out.  Cannot  the  Judge 
be  satisfied  ?  If  he  fears,  in  the  unfortunate  case  of  my  election,  that  my  going  to 
Washington  will  enable  me  to  advocate  sentiments  contrary  to  those  which  I  ex- 
pressed when  you  voted  for  and  elected  me,  I  assure  him  that  his  fears  are  wholly 
needless  and  groundless.  Is  the  Judge  really  afraid  of  any  such  thing  ?  I'll  tell 
you  what  he  is  afraid  of.  He  is  afraid  we'll  all  pull  together.  This  is  what  alarms 


107 

him  more  than  any  thing  else.  For  my  part,  I  do  hope  that  all  of  us,  entertaining  a 
common  sentiment  in  opposition  to  what  appears  to  us  a  design  to  nationalize  and 
perpetuate  slavery,  will  waive  minor  differences  on  questions  which  either  belong  to 
the  dead  past  or  the  distant  future,  and  all  pull  together  in  this  struggle.  What  are 
your  sentiments  ?  If  it  be  true,  that  on  the  ground  which  I  occupy — ground  which 
I  occupy  as  frankly  and  boldly  as  Judge  Douglas  does  his — my  views,  though  partly 
coinciding  with  yours,  are  not  as  perfectly  in  accordance  with  your  feelings  as  his 
are,  I  do  say  to  you  in  all  candor,  go  for  him  and  not  for  me.  I  hope  to  deal  in  all 
things  fairly  with  Judge  Douglas,  and  with  the  people  of  the  State,  in  this  contest. 
And  if  I  should  never  be  elected  to  any  office,  I  trust  I  may  go  down  with  no  stain 
of  falsehood  upon  my  reputation — notwithstanding  the  hard  opinions  Judge  Douglas 
chooses  to  entertain  of  me. 

The  Judge  has  again  addressed  himself  to  the  abolition  tendencies  of  a  speech  of 
mine,  made  at  Springfield  in  June  last.  I  have  so  often  tried  to  answer  what  he  is 
always  saying  on  that  melancholy  theme,  that  I  almost  turn  with  disgust  from  the 
discussion — from  the  repetition  of  an  answer  to  it.  I  trust  that  nearly  all  of  this 
intelligent  audience  have  read  that  speech.  If  you  have,  I  may  venture  to  leave  it 
to  you  to  inspect  it  closely,  and  see  whether  it  contains  any  of  those  "  bugaboos " 
which  frighten  Judge  Douglas. 

The  Judge  complains  that  I  did  not  fully  answer  his  questions.  If  I  have  the 
sense  to  comprehend  and  answer  those  questions,  I  have  done  so  fairly.  If  it  can  be 
pointed  out  to  me  how  I  can  more  fully  and  fairly  answer  him,  I  aver  I  have  not  the 
sense  to  see  how  it  is  to  be  done.  He  says  I  do  not  declare  I  would  in  any  event 
vote  for  the  admission  of  a  slave  State  into  the  Union.  If  I  have  been  fairly 
reported  he  will  see  that  I  did  give  an  explicit  answer  to  his  interrogatories,  I  did 
not  merely  say  that  I  would  dislike  to  be  put  to  the  test ;  but  I  said  clearly,  if  I  were 
put  to  the  test,  and  a  Territory  from  which  slavery  had  been  excluded  should  present 
herself  with  a  State  Constitution  sanctioning  slavery — a  most  extraordinary  thing  and 
wholly  unlikely  to  happen — I  did  not  see  how  I  could  avoid  voting  for  her  admission. 
But  he  refuses  to  understand  that  I  said  so,  and  he  wants  this  audience  to  under- 
stand that  I  did  not  say  so.  Yet  it  will  be  so  reported  in  the  printed  speech  that  he 
cannot  help  seeing  it. 

He  says  if  I  should  vote  for  the  admission  of  a  slave  State  I  would  be  voting  for 
a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  because  I  hold  that  the  Union  cannot  permanently  exist 
half  slave  and  half  free.  I  repeat  that  I  do  not  believe  this  Government  can  endure 
permanently  half  slave  and  half  free,  yet  I  do  not  admit,  nor  does  it  at  all  follow, 
that  the  admission  of  a  single  slave  State  will  permanently  fix  the  character  and 
establish  this  as  a  universal  slave  nation.  The  Judge  is  very  happy  indeed  at  work- 
ing up  these  quibbles.  Before  leaving  the  subject  of  answering  questions  I  aver  as 
my  confident  belief,  when  you  come  to  see  our  speeches  in  print,  that  you  will  find 
every  question  which  he  has  asked  me  more  fairly  and  boldly  and  fully  answered 
than  he  has  answered  those  which  I  put  to  him.  Is  not  that  so  ?  The  two  speeches 
may  be  placed  side  by  side ;  and  I  will  venture  to  leave  it  to  impartial  judges 
whether  his  questions  have  not  been  more  directly  and  circumstantially  answered 
than  mine. 

Judge  Douglas  says  he  made  a  charge  upon  the  editor  of  the  Washington  Union, 
alone,  of  entertaining  a  purpose  to  rob  the  States  of  their  power  to  exclude  slavery 
from  their  limits.  I  undertake  to  say,  and  I  make  the  direct  issue,  that  he  did  not 
make  his  charge  against  the  editor  of  the  Union  alone.  I  will  undertake  to  prove 
by  the  record  here,  that  he  made  that  charge  against  more  and  higher  dignitaries 
than  the  editor  of  the  Washington  Union.  I  am  quite  aware  that  he  was  shirking 
and  dodging  around  the  form  in  which  he  put  it,  but  I  can  make  it  manifest  that  he 
leveled  his  "fatal  blow"  against  more  persons  than  this  Washington  editor.  Will 
he  dodge  it  now  by  alleging  that  I  am  trying  to  defend  Mr.  Buchanan  against  the 
charge  ?  Not  at  all.  Am  I  not  making  the  same  charge  myself?  I  am  trying  to 
show  that  you,  Judge  Douglas,  are  a  witness  on  my  side.  I  am  not  defending 


108 

Buchanan,  and  I  will  tell  Judge  Douglas  that  in  my  opinion,  when  he  made  that 
charge,  he  had  an  eye  farther  north  than  he  was  to-day.  He  was  then  fighting 
against  people  who  called  him  a  Black  Republican  and  an  Abolitionist.  It  is 
mixed  all  through  his  speech,  and  it  is  tolerably  manifest  that  his  eye  was  a 
great  deal  farther  north  than  it  is  to-day.  The  Judge  says  that  though  he  made 
this  charge,  Toombs  got  up  and  declared  there  was  not  a  man  in  the  United 
Slates,  except  the  editor  of  the  Union,  who  was  in  favor  of  the  doctrines  put 
*brth  in  that  article.  And  thereupon,  I  understand  that  the  Judge  withdrew  the 
charge.  Although  he  had  taken  extracts  from  the  newspaper,  and  then  from  the 
Lecoinpton  Constitution,  to  show  the  existence  of  a  conspiracy  to  bring  about  a 
u  fatal  blow,"  by  which  the  States  were  to  be  deprived  of  the  right  of  excluding 
slavery,  it  all  went  to  pot  as  soon  as  Toombs  got  up  and  told  him  it  was  not 
true.  It  reminds  me  of  the  story  that  John  Phoenix,  the  California  railroad 
surveyor,  tells.  He  says  they  started  out  from  the  I3laza  to  the  Mission  of 
Dolores.  They  had  two  ways  of  determining  distances.  One  was  by  a  chain 
and  pins  taken  over  the  ground.  The  other  was  by  a  "go-it-ometer" — an  inven- 
tion of  his  own — a  three-legged  instrument,  with  which  he  computed  a  series  of  tri- 
angles between  the  points.  At  night  he  turned  to  the  chain-man  to  ascertain  what 
distance  they  had  come,  and  found  that  by  some  mistake  he  had  merely  dragged  the 
chain  over  the  ground  without  keeping  any  record.  By  the  "go-it-ometer"  he 
found  he  had  made  ten  miles.  Being  skeptical  about  this,  he  asked  a  drayman  who 
was  passing  how  far  it  was  to  the  plaza.  The  drayman  replied  it  was  just  half  a 
mile,  and  the  surveyor  put  it  down  in  his  book — -just  as  Judge  Douglas  says, 
after  he  had  made  his  calculations  and  computations,  he  took  Toombs's  statement. 
I  have  no  doubt  that  after  Judge  Douglas  had  made  his  charge,  he  was  as  easily 
satisfied  about  its  truth  as*  the  surveyor  was  of  the  drayman's  statement  of  the  dis- 
tance to  the  plaza.  Yet  it  is  a  fact  that  the  man  who  put  forth  {ill  that  matter  which 
Douglas  deemed  a  "fatal  alow"  at  State  sovereignty,  was  elected  by  the  Democrats 
as  public  printer. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  may  take  Judge  Douglas's  speech  of  March  22d,  1858. 
beginning  about  the  middle  of  page  21,  and  reading  to  the  bottom  of  page  24,  and 
you  will  find  the  evidence  on  which  I  say  that  he  did  riot  make  his  charge  against 
the  editor  of  the  Union  alone.  I  cannot  stop  to  read  it,  but  I  will  give  it  to  the 
reporters.  Judge  Douglas  said : 

"Mr.  President,  you  here  find  several  distinct  propositions  advanced  boldly  by  the 
Washington  Union  editorially  and  apparently  authoritatively,  and  every  man  who 
questions  any  of  them  is  denounced  as  an  Abolitionist,  a  Freesoiler,  a  fanatic.  The 
propositions  are,  first,  that  the  primary  object  of  all  government  at  its  original  insti- 
tution is  the  protection  of  persons  and  property ;  second,  that  the  Constitution  of  tin- 
United  States  declares  that  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States;  and  that,  therefore, 
thirdly,  all  State  laws,  whether  organic  or  otherwise,  which  prohibit  the  citizens  of 
one  State  from  settling  in  another  with  their  slave  property,  and  especially  declaring 
it  forfeited,  are  direct  violations  of  the  original  intention  of  the  Government  and 
Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and  fourth,  that  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves 
of  the  Northern  States  was  a  gross  outrage  on  the  rights  of  property,  inasmuch  as  it 
was  involuntarily  done  on  the  part  of  the  owner." 

"Remember  that  this  article  was  published  in  the  Union  on  the  17th  of  November, 
and  on  the  18th  appeared  the  first  article  giving  the  adhesion  of  the  Union  to  tJwt 
Lecompton  Constitution.  It  was  in  these  words  : 

"'KANSAS  AND  HER  CONSTITUTION. — The  vexed  question  is  settled.  The  prob- 
lem is  solved.  The  dead  point  of  danger  is  passed.  All  serious  trouble  to  Kansas 
affairs  is  over  and  gone' — 

"And  a  column,  nearly,  of  the  same  sort.  Then,  when  you  come  to  look  into  the 
Lecompton  Constitution,  you  find  the  same  doctrine  incorporated  in  it  which  was  put 
forth  editorially  in  the  Union.  What  is  it? 


109 

"'ARTICLE  7,  Section  1.  The  right  of  property  is  before  and  higher  than  anj 
constitutional  sanction ;  and  the  right  of  the  owner  of  a  slave  to  such  slave  and  its 
increase  is  the  same  and  as  invariable  as  the  right  of  the  owner  of  any  property 
whatever.' 

•'  Then  in  the  schedule  is  a  provision  that  the  Constitution  may  be  amended  after 
18G4  by  a  two-thirds  vote. 

" '  But  no  alteration  shall  be  made  to  affect  the  right  of  property  in  the  ownership 
of  slaves.' 

"It  will  be  seen  by  these  clauses  in  the  Lecompton  Constitution  that  they  are  idea 
tical  in  spirit  with  this  authoritative  article  in  the  Washington  Union  of  the  day 
previous  to  its  indorsement  of  this  Constitution. 

"When  I  saw  that  article  in  the  Union  of  the  17th  of  November,  followed  by  the 
glorification  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  on  the  18th  of  November,  and  this 
clause  in  the  Constitution  asserting  the  doctrine  that  a  State  has  no  right  to  prohibit 
slavery  within  its  limits,  I  saw  that  there  was  a  fatal  blow  being  struck  at  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  States  of  this  Union." 

Here  he  says,  "Mr.  President,  you  here  find  several  distinct  propositions  advanced 
boldly,  and  apparently  authoritatively"  By  whose  authority,  Judge  Douglas? 
Again,  he  says  in  another  place,  "  It  will  be  seen  by  these  clauses  in  the  Lecompton 
Constitution,  that  they  are  identical  in  spirit  with  this  authoritative  article."  By 
whose  authority1}  Who  do  you  mean  to  say  authorized  the  publication -of  these 
articles  ?  He  knows  that  the  Washington  Union  is  considered  the  organ  of  the 
Administration.  /  demand  of  Judge  Douglas  by  whose  authority  he  meant  to  say 
those  articles  were  published,  if  not  by  the  authority  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  and  his  Cabinet  ?  I  defy  him  to  show  whom  he  referred  to,  if  not  to  these 
high  functionaries  in  the  Federal  Government.  More  than  this,  he  says  the  articles 
in  that  paper  and  the  provisions  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  are  "identical," 
and  being  identical,  he  argues  that  the  authors  are  co-operating  and  conspiring 
together.  He  does  not  use  the  word  "'conspiring,"  but  what  other  construction  can 
you  put  upon  it  ?  He  winds  up  with  this : 

"When  I  saw  that  article  in  the  Union  of  the  17th  of  November,  followed  by  the 
glorification  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  on  the  18th  of  November,  and  this 
clause  in  the  Constitution  asserting  the  doctrine  that  a  State  has  no  right  to  prohibit 
slavery  within  its  limits,  I  saw  that  there  was  a  fatal  blow  being  struck  at  the 
sovereignty  of  the  States  of  this  Union." 

I  ask  him  if  all  this  fuss  was  made  over  the  editor  of  this  newspaper.  It  would 
be  a  terribly  "fatal  blow"  indeed  which  a  single  man  could  strike,  when  no  Presi- 
dent, no  Cabinet  officer,  no  member  of  Congress,  was  giving  strength  and  efficiency 
to  the  moment.  Out  of  respect  to  Judge  Douglas's  good  sense  I  must  believe  he 
did'nt  manufacture  his  idea  of  the  "fatal"  character  of  that  blow  out  of  such  a  mis- 
erable scapegrace  as  he  represents  that  editor  to  be.  But  the  Judge's  eye  is  farther 
south  now.  Then,  it  was  very  peculiarly  and  decidedly  north.  His  hope  rested  on 
the  idea  of  visiting  the  great  "Black  Republican"  party,  and  making  it  the  tail  of 
;»is  new  kite.  He  knows  he  was  then  expecting  from  day  to  day  to  turn  Republican 
and  place  himself  at  the  head  of  our  organization.  He  has  found  that  these 
despised  "Black  Republicans"  estimate  him  by  a  standard  which  he  has  taught 
them  none  too  well.  Hence  he  is  crawling  back  into  his  old  camp,  and  you  will  fiod 
him  eventually  installed  in  full  fellowship  among  those  whom  he  was  then  battling, 
and  with  whom  he  now  pretends  to  be  at  such  fearful  variance.  {[Loud  applause 
and  cries  of  "go  on,  go  on."]  I  cannot,  gentlemen,  my  time  has  expired. 

8 


110 


THIRD  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  JONESBORO, 

September  15,  1858. 


MR.  DOUGLAS'S  SPEECH. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  I  appear  before  you  to-day  in  pursuance  of  a  pre- 
rious  notice,  and  have  made  arrangements  with  Mr.  Lincoln  to  divide  time,  and 
discuss  with  him  the  leading  political  topics  that  now  agitate  the  country. 

Prior  to  1854  this  country  was  divided  into  two  great  political  parties  known  as 
Whig  and  Democratic.  These  parties  differed  from  each  other  on  certain  ques- 
tions which  were  then  deemed  to  be  important  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Re- 
public. Whig  and  Democrats  differed  about  a  bank,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the 
specie  circular  and  the  sub-treasury.  On  those  issues  we  went  before  the  countiy 
and  discussed  the  principles,  objects  and  measures  of  the  two  great  parties.  Kach 
of  the  parties  could  proclaim  its  principles  in  Louisiana  as  well  as  in  Massachu- 
setts, in  Kentucky  as  well  as  in  Illinois.  Since  that  period,  a  great  revolution 
has  taken  place  in  the  formation  of  parties,  by  which  they  now  seem  to  be  divided 
by  a  geographical  line,  a  large  party  in  the  North  being  arrayed  under  the  Abolition 
or  Republican  bannei'j  in  hostility  to  the  Southern  States,  Southern  people,  and 
Southern  institutions.  It  becomes  important  for  us  to  inquire  how  this  transforma- 
tion of  parties  has  occurred,  made  from  those  of  national  principles  to  geographical 
factions.  You  remember  that  in  1850 — this  country  was  agitated  from  its  cen- 
ter to  its  circumference  about  this  slavery  question — it  became  necessary  for  the 
leaders  of  the  great  Whig  party  and  the  leaders  of  the  great  Democratic  party  to 
postpone,  for  the  time  being,  their  particular  disputes,  and  unite  first  to  save  the 
Union  before  they  should  quarrel  as  to  the  mode  in  which  it  was  to  be  governed. 
During  the  Congress  of  1849-'50,  Henry  Clay  was  the  leader  of  the  Union  men, 
eupported  by  Cass  and  Webster,  and  the  leaders  of  the  Democracy  and  the  lead- 
ers of  the  Whigs,  in  opposition  to  Northern  Abolitionists  or  Southern  Disunionists. 
That  great  contest  of  1850  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  the  Compromise 
Measures  of  that  year,  which  measures  rested  on  the  great  principle  that  the  peo- 
ple of  each  State  and  each  Territory  of  this  Union  ought  to  be  permitted  to 
regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  to  no  other 
limitation  than  that  which  the  Federal  Constitution  imposes. 

I  now  wish  to  ask  you  whether  that  principle  was  right  or  wrong  which  guaran- 
tied to  every  State  and  every  community  the  right  to  form  and  regulate  their  do- 
mestic institutions  to  suit  themselves.  These  measures  were  adopted,  as  I  have 
previously  said,  by  the  joint  action  of  the  Union  Whigs  and  Union  Democrats 
in  opposition  to  Northern  Abolitionists  and  Southern  Disunionists.  In  1858,  when 
the  Whig  party  assembled  at  Baltimore,  in  National  Convention  for  the  last  tim«», 
they  adopted  the  principle  of  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850  as  their  rule  of 
party  action  in  the  future.  One  month  thereafter  the  Democrats  assembled  at  the 
sumo  place  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  and  declared  the  same 
great  principle  as  the  rule  of  action  by  which  the  Democracy  would  be  governed. 
The  Presidential  election  of  1852  was  fought  on  that  \tasls.  It  is  true  that  the 
Whigs  claimed  special  merit  for  the  adoption  of  those  measures,  because  they  as- 
serted that  their  great  Clay  originated  them,  their  god-like  Webster  defended  them 
and  their  Fillmore  signed  the  bill  making  them  the  law  of  the  land  ;  but  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Democrats  claimed  special  credit  for  the  Democracy,  upon  the 


Ill 

ground  that  we  gave  twice  as  many  votes  in  both  Houses  of  Congress  for  the  passage 
of  these  measures  as  the  Whig  party. 

Thus  you  see  that  in  the  Presidential  election  of  1852,  the  Whigs  were  pledged 
by  their  platform  and  their  candidate  to  the  principle  of  the  Compromise  Measures 
of  1850,  and  the  Democracy  were  likewise  pledged  by  our  principles,  our  platform, 
and  our  candidate  to  the  same  line  of  policy,  to  preserve  peace  and  quiet  between 
the  different  sections  of  this  Union.  Since  that  period  the  Whig  party  has  been 
transformed  into  a  sectional  party,  under  the  name  of  the  Republican  party,  whilst 
the  Democratic  party  continues  the  same  national  party  it  was  at  that  day.  All 
sectional  men,  all  men  of  Abolition  sentiments  and  principles,  no  matter  whether 
they  were  old  Abolitionists  or  had  been  Whigs  or  Democrats,  rally  under  the 
sectional  Republican  banner,  and  consequently  all  national  men,  all  Union-loving 
men,  whether  Whigs.  Democrats,  or  by  whatever  name  they  have  been  known,  ought 
to  rally  under  the  stars  and  stripes  in  defense  of  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers 
made  it,  and  of  the  Union  as  it  has  existed  under  the  Constitution. 

How  has  this  departure  from  the  faith  of  the  Democracy  and  the  faith  of  the 
Whig  party  been  accomplished?  In  1854,  certain  restless,  ambitious,  and  disap- 
pointed politicians  throughout  the  land  took  advantage  of  the  temporary  excitement 
created  by  the  Nebraska  bill  to  try  and  dissolve  the  old  Whig  party  and  the  old 
Democratic  party,  to  abolitionize  their  members,  and  lead  them,  bound  hand  and 
foot,  captives  into  the  Abolition  camp.  In  the  State  of  New  York  a  Convention 
was  held  by  some  of  these  men  and  a  platform  adopted,  every  plank  of  which  was 
as  black  as  night,  each  one  relating  to  the  negro,  and  not  one  referring  to  the 
interests  of  the  white  man.  That  example  was  followed  throughout  the  Northern 
State?,  the  effect  being  made  to  combine  all  the  free  States  in  hostile  array  against 
the  slave  States.  The  men  who  thus  thought  that  they  could  build  up  a  great 
Fectional  party,  and  through  its  organization  control  the  political  destinies  of  this 
country,  based  all  their  hopes  on  the  single  fact  that  the  North  was  the  stronger 
division  of  the  nation,  and  hence,  if  the  North  could  be  combined  against  the 
South,  a  sure  victory  awaited  their  efforts.  I  am  doing  no  more  than  justice  to 
the  truth  of  history  when  I  say  that  in  this  State  Abraham  Lincoln,  on  behalf  of 
the  Whigs,  and  Lymari  Trumbull,  on  behalf  of  the  Democrats,  were  the  leaders 
who  undertook  to  perform  this  grand  scheme  of  abolitionizing  the  two  parties  to 
which  they  belonged.  They  had  a  private  arrangement  as  to  what  should 
be  the  political  destiny  of  each  of  the  contracting  parties  before  they  went 
into  the  operation.  The  arrangement  was  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  to  take  the 
old  line  Whigs  with  him,  claiming  that  he  was  still  as  good  a  Whig  as  ever,  over 
to  the  Abolitionists,  and  Mr.  Trumbull  was  to  run  for  Congress  in  the  Belleville 
District,  and,  claiming  to  be  a  good  Democrat,  coax  the  old  Democrats  into  the  Abo- 
lition camp,  and  when,  by  the  joint  efforts  of  the  abolitionized  Whigs,  the  aboli- 
tionized  Democrats,  and  the  old  line  Abolition  and  Freesoil  party  of  this  State, 
they  should  secure  a  majority  in  the  Legislature.  Lincoln  was  then  to  be  made 
United  States  Senator  in  Shields's  place,  Trumbull  remaining  in  Congress  until  I 
should  be  accommodating  enougli  to  die  or  resign,  and  give  him  a  chance  to  follow 
Lincoln.  That  was  a  very  nice  little  bargain  so  far  as  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  were 
concerned,  if  it  had  been  carried  out  in  good  faith,  and  friend  Lincoln  had  attained 
to  Senatorial  dignity  according  to  the  contract.  They  went  into  the  contest  in  every 
pm  t  of  the  State,  calling  upon  all  disappointed  politicians  to  join  in  the  crusad* 
against  the  Democracy,  and  appealed  to  the  prevailing  sentiments  and  prejudices  iu 
all  the  northern  counties  of  the  State.  In  three  Congressional  Districts  in  the  north 
end  of  the  State  they  adopted,  as  the  platform  of  this  new  party  thus  formed  by 
Lincoln  and  Trumbull  in  the  connection  with  the  Abolitionists,  all  of  those  princi- 
ples which  aimed  at  a  warfare  on  the  part  of  the  North  against  the  South.  They 
declared  in  that  platform  that  the  Wilmot  Proviso  was  to  be  applied  to  all  the  Ter- 
ritories of  the  United  States,  North  as  well  as  South  of  36  deg.  30  min.,  and  not 
only  to  all  the  territory  we  then  had,  but  all  that  we  might  hereafter  acquire ;  that 


112 

hereafter  no  more  slave  States  should  be  admitted  into  this  Union,  even  if  the 
people  of  such  State  desired  slavery ;  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  should  be  abso- 
lutely and  unconditionally  repealed;  that  slavery  should  be  abolished  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia;  that  the  slave-trade  should  be  abolished  between  the  different 
States,  and,  in  fact,  every  article  in  their  creed  related  to  this  slavery  question, 
and  pointed  to  a  Northern  geographical  party  in  hostility  to  the  Southern  States 
of  this  Union.  Such  were  their  principles  in  Northern  Illinois.  A  little  further 
South  they  became  bleached  and  grew  paler  just  in  proportion  as  public,  senti- 
ment moderated  and  changed  in  this  direction.  They  were  Republicans  or  Abo- 
litionists in  the  North,  anti-Nebraska  men  down  about  Springfield,  and  in  this 
neighborhood  they  contented  themselves  with  talking  about  the  inexpediency  cf 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  In  the  extreme  northern  counties  they 
brought  out  men  to  canvass  the  State  whose  complexion  suited  their  political 
<ireed,  and  hence  Fred  Douglass,  the  negro,  was  to  be  found  there,  following  Gen. 
Cass,  and  attempting  to  speak  on  behalf  of  Lincoln,  Trumbull  and  Abolitionism, 
against  that  illustrious  Senator.  Why,  they  brought  Fred  Douglass  to  Freeport, 
when  I  was  addressing  a  meeting  there,  in  a  carriage  driven  by  the  white  owner, 
the  negro  sitting  inside  with  the  white  lady  and  her  daughter.  When  I  got 
through  canvassing  the  northern  counties  that  year,  and  progressed  as  far  south 
as  Springfield,  I  was  met  and  opposed  in  discussion  by  Lincoln,  Lovejoy,  Trum- 
bull, and  Sidney  Breese,  who  were  on  one  side.  Father  Giddings,  the  high-priest 
of  Abolitionism,  had  just  been  there,  and  Chase  came  about  the  time  I  left.  ["  Why 
didn't  you  shoot  him?"]  I  did  take  a  running  shot  at  them,  but  as  I  was  single-handed 
against  the  white,  black  and  mixed  drove,  I  had  to  use  a  shot-gun  and  fire  into  the 
crowd  instead  of  taking  them  off  singly  with  a  rifle.  Trumbull  had  for  his  lieutenants, 
in  aiding  him  to  abolitionize  the  Democracy,  such  men  as  John  Wentworth,  of  Chicago, 
Gov.  Reynolds,  of  Belleville,  Sidney  Breese,  of  Carlisle,  and  John  Dougherty,  of 
Union,  each  of  whom  modified  his  opinions  to  suit  the  locality  he  was  in.  Dough- 
erty, for  instance,  would  not  go  much  further  than  to  talk  about  the  inexpediency 
of  the  Nebraska  bill,  whilst  his  allies  at  Chicago,  advocated  negro  citizenship  and 
negro  equality,  putting  the  white  man  and  the  negro  on  the  same  basis  under  the 
law.  Now  these  men,  four  years  ago,  were  engaged  in  a  conspiracy  to  break 
down  the  Democracy;  to-day  they  are  again  acting  together  for  the  same  pur- 
pose! They  do  not  hoist  the  same  flag;  they  do  not  own  the  same  principles, 
or  profess  the  same  faith;  but  conceal  their  union  for  the  sake  of  policy.  In 
the  northern  counties,  you  find  that  all  the  Conventions  are  called  in  the  name 
of  the  Black  Republican  party ;  at  Springfield,  they  dare  not  call  a  Republican 
Convention,  but  invite  all  the  enemies  of  the  Democracy  to  unite,  and  when  they 
get  down  into  Egypt,  Trumbull  issues  notices  calling  upon  the  "Free  Democracy" 
to  assemble  and  hear  him  speak.  I  have  one  of  the  handbills  calling  a  Trum- 
bull meeting  at  Waterloo  the  other  day,  which  I  received  there,  which  is  iu  th-e 
following  language: 

A  meeting  of  the  Free  Democracy  will  take  place  in  Waterloo,  on  Monday,  Sept.  13th  inst., 
wheieat  Hon.  Lyrnan  Trumbull,  Hoii.  John  Baker  and  others,  will  address  the  people  upon  the 
dirtl'reut  political  topics  of  the  day.  Members  of  all  parties  are  cordially  invited  to  be  present, 
and  heai  and  determine  for  themselves.  THE  MOX&OE  FJIEE  DKMOCK  vcv. 

What  is  that  name  of  "  Free  Democrats "  put  forth  for  unless  to  deceive  the 
people,  and  mase  them  believe  that  Trumbull  and  his  followers  are  riot  the  same 
party  as  that  which  raises  the  black  flag  of  Abolitionism  in  the  northern  part  of  this 
State,  and  makes  war  upon  the  Democratic  party  throughout  the  State.  When 
I  put  that  question  to  them  at  Waterloo  on  Saturday  last,  one  of  them  rose  and 
stated  that  they  had  changed  their  name  for  political  effect  in  order  to  get  votes. 
There  was  a  candid  admission.  Their  object  in  changing  their  party  organization 
and  principles  in  different  localities  was  avowed  to  be  an  attempt  to  cheat  and  de- 
ceive some  portion  of  the  people  until  after  the  election.  Why  cannot  a  political 


113 

party  that  is  conscious  of  the  rectitude  of  its  purposes  and  the  soundness  of  its  prin- 
ciples declare  them  every  where  alike  ?  I  would  disdain  to  hold  any  political  prin- 
ciples that  I  could  not  avow  in  the  same  terms  in  Kentucky  that  I  declared  in  Illi- 
nois, in  Charleston  as  well  as  in  Chicago,  in  New  Orleans  as  well  as  in  New  York. 
So  long  as  we  live  under  a  Constitution  common  to  all  the  States,  our  political  faith 
ought  to  be  as  broad,  as  liberal,  and  just  as  that  Constitution  itself,  and  should  be 
proclaimed  alike  in  every  portion  of  the  Union.  But  it  is  apparent  that  our  oppo- 
nents find  it  necessary,  for  partisan  effect,  to  change  their  colors  in  different  coun- 
ties in  order  to  catch  the  popular  breeze,  and  hope  with  these  discordant  materials 
combined  together  to  secure  a  majority  in  the  Legislature  for  the  purpose  of  putting 
down  the  Democratic  party.  This  combination  did  succeed  in  1854  so  far  as  to 
elect  a  majority  of  their  confederates  to  the  Legislature,  and  the  lirst  important  act 
winch  they  performed  was  to  elect  a  Senator  in  the  place  of  the  eminent  and  gallant 
Senator  Shields.  His  term  expired  in  the  United  States  Senate  at  that  time,  and 
lie  had  to  be  crushed  by  the  Abolition  coalition  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  would 
not  join  in  their  conspiracy  to  wage  war  against  one-half  of  the  Union.  That  was 
the  only  objection  to  General  Shields.  He  had  served  the  people  of  the  State  with 
ability  in  the  Legislature,  he  had  served  you  with  fidelity  and  ability  as  Auditor, 
he  had  performed  his  duties  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  whole  country  at  the  head 
of  the  Land  Department  at  Washington,  he  had  covered  the  State  and  the  Union 
with  immortal  glory  on  the  bloody  fields  of  Mexico  in  defense  of  the  honor  of  our 
flag,  and  yet  he  had  to  be  stricken  down  by  this  unholy  combination.  And  for  what 
cause  ?  Merely  because  he  would  not  join  a  combination  of  one-half  of  the  States 
to  make  war  upon  the  other  half)  after  having  poured  out  his  heart's  blood  for  all 
the  States  in  the  Union.  Trumbull  was  put  in  his  place  by  Abolitionism.  How 
did  Trumbull  get  there  ?  Before  the  Abolitionists  would  consent  to  go  into  an 
election  for  United  States  Senator  they  required  all  the  members  of  this  new  com- 
bination to  show  their  hands  upon  this  question  of  Abolitionism.  Lovejoy,  one  of 
their  high-priests,  brought  in  resolutions  defining  the  Abolition  creed,  and  required 
them  to  commit  themselves  on  it  by  their  votes — yea  or  nay.  In  that  creed,  as 
laid  down  by  Lovejoy,  they  declared  first,  that  the  Wilmot  Proviso  must  be  put 
on  all  the  Territories  of -the  United  States,  North  as  well  as  South  of  36  deg.  30 
min.,  and  that  no  more  territory  should  ever  be  acquired  unless  slavery  was  at 
rirst  prohibited  therein ;  second,  that  no  more  States  should  ever  be  received  into 
the  Union  unless  slavery  was  first  prohibited,  by  Constitutional  provision,  in  such 
States ;  third,  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  must  be  immediately  repealed,  or,  failing 
in  that,  then  such  amendments  were  to  be  made  to  it  as  would  render  it  useless 
and  inefficient  for  the  objects  for  which  it  was  passed,  etc.  The  next  day  after  these 
resolutions  were  offered  they  were  voted  upon,  part  of  them  carried,  and  the  others 
<Ufeated,  the  same  men  who  voted  for  them,  with  only  two  exceptions,  voting  soon 
aftt,r  for  Abraham  Lincoln  as  their  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate.  He 
came  within  one  or  two  votes  of  being  elected,  but  he  could  not  quite  get  the  num- 
ber required,  for  the  simple  reason  that  his  friend  Trumbull,  who  was  a  party  to  the 
bargain  by  which  Lincoln  was  to  take  Shields's  place,  controlled  a  few  abolitionized 
Democrats  in  the  Legislature,  and  would  not  allow  them  all  to  vote  for  him,  thus 
wronging  Lincoln  by  permitting  him  on  each  ballot  to  be  almost  elected,  but  not 
quite,  until  he  forced  them  to  drop  Lincoln  and  elect  him  (Trumbull),  in  order  to 
unite  the  party.  Tims  you  find,  that  although  the  Legislature  was  carried  that  year 
by  the  bargain  between  Trumbull,  Lincoln,  and  the  Abolitionists,  and  the  union  of 
these  discordant  elements  in  one  harmonious  party ;  yet  Trumbull  violated  his  pledge, 
and  played  a  Yankee  trick  on  Lincoln  when  the^  came  to  divide  the  spoils.  Per- 
haps you  would  like  a  little  evidence  on  this  point.  If  you  would,  I  will  call  Col. 
James  H.  Matheny,  of  Springfield,  to  the  stand,  Mr.  Lincoln's  especial  confidential 
friend  for  the  last  twenty  years,  and  see  what  he  will  say  upon  the  subject  of  this 
bargain.  Matheny  is  now  the  Black  Republican  or  Abolition  candidate  for  Con- 
gress in  the  Springfield  District  against  the  gallant  Col.  Harris,  and  is  making 


114 

speeches  all  over  that  part  of  the  State  againftt  me  and  in  favor  of  Lincoln,  hi 
concert  with  Trumbull.  He  ought  to  be  a  good  witness,  and  I  will  read  an  extract 
from  a  speech  which  he  made  in  1856,  when  he  was  mad  because  his  friend  Lincoln 
had  been  cheated.  It  is  one  of  numerous  speeches  of  the  same  tenor  that  were 
made  about  that  time,  exposing  this  bargain  between  Lincoln,  Trumbull  and  the  Abo- 
litionists. Matheny  then  said : 

"  The  Whigs,  Abolitionists,  Know  Nothings  and  renegade  Democrats  made  a  sol- 
emn compact  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  this  State  against  the  Democracy,  on  this 
plan  :  1st.  That  they  would  all  combine  and  elect  Mr.  Trumbull  to  Congress,  and 
thereby  carry  his  district  for  the  Legislature,  in  order  to  throw  all  the  strength  that 
could  be  obtained  into  that  body  against  the  Democrats.  2d.  That  when  the  Legis- 
lature should  meet,  the  officers  of  that  body,  such  as  speaker,  clerks,  door-keepers, 
etc.,  would  be  given  to  the  Abolitionists  ;  and  3d.  That  the  Whigs  were  to  have  the 
United  States  Senator.  That,  accordingly,  in  good  faith,  Trumbull  was  elected  to 
Congress,  and  his  district  carried  for  the  Legislature,  and,  when  it  convened,  the 
Abolitionists  got  all  the  officers  of  that  body,  and  thus  far  the  "  bond "  was  fairly 
executed.  The  Whigs,  on  their  part,  demanded  the  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln 
to  the  United  States  Senate,  that  the  bond  might  be  fulfilled,  the  other  parties  to 
the  contract  having  already  secured  to  themselves  all  that  was  called  for.  But,  in 
the  most  perfidious  manner,  they  refused  to  elect  Mr.  Lincoln ;  and  the  mean,  low- 
lived, sneaking  Trumbull  succeeded,  by  pledging  all  that  was  required  by  any  party, 
in  thrusting  Lincoln  aside  and  foisting  himself,  an  excrescence  from  the  rotten  bowels 
of  the  Democracy,  into  the  United  States  Senate ;  and  thus  it  has  ever  been,  that 
an  honest  man  makes  a  bad  bargain  when  he  conspires  or  contracts  with  rogues." 

Matheny  thought  that  his  friend  Lincoln  made  a  bad  bargain  when  he  conspired 
and  contracted  with  such  rogues  as  Trumbull  and  his  Abolition  associates  in  that 
campaign.  Lincoln  was  shoved  off  the  track,  and  he  and  his  friends  all  at  once  be- 
gan to  mope ;  became  sour  and  mad,  and  disposed  to  tell,  but  dare  not ;  and  thus 
they  stood  for  a  long  time,  until  the  Abolitionists  coaxed  and  flattered  him  back  by 
their  assurances  that  he  should  certainly  be  a  Senator  in  Douglas's  place.  In  that 
way  the  Abolitionists  have  been  enabled  to  hold  Lincoln  to  the  alliance  up  to  this 
time,  and  now  they  have  brought  him  into  a  fight  against  me,  and  he  is  to  see  if  he 
is  again  to  be  cheated  by  them.  Lincoln  this  time,  though,  required  more  of  them 
than  a  promise,  and  holds  their  bond,  if  not  security,  that  Lovejoy  shall  not  cheat 
him  as  Trumbull  did. 

When  the  Republican  Convention  assembled  at  Springfield,  in  Juno  last,  for  the 
purpose  of  nominating  State  officers  only,  the  Abolitionists  could  not  get  Lincoln 
and  his  friends  into  it  until  they  would  pledge  themselves  that  Lincoln  should  be 
their  candidate  for  the  Senate ;  and  you  will  find,  in  proof  of  this,  that  that  Conven- 
tion passed  a  resolution  unanimouly  declaring  that  Abraham  Lincoln  was  the  "  first, 
last  and  only  choice  "  of  the  Republicans  for  United  States  Senator.  He  was  not; 
willing  to  have  it  understood  that  he  was  merely  their  first  choice,  or  their  last 
choice,  but  their  only  choice.  The  Black  Republican  party  had  nobody  else. 
Browning  was  nowhere ;  Gov.  Bissell  was  of  no  account ;  Archie  Williams  was  not 
to  be  taken  into  consideration ;  John  Wentworth  was  not  worth  mentioning ;  John 
M.  Palmer  was  degraded ;  and  their  party  presented  the  extraordinary  spectacle  of 
having  but  one — the  first,  the  last,  and  only  choice  for  the  Senate.  Suppose  that 
Lincoln  should  die,  what  a  horrible  condition  the  Republican  party  would  be  in  ! 
They  would  have  nobody  left.  They  have  no  other  choice,  and  it  was  necessary  for 
them  to  put  themselves  before  the  world  in  this  ludicrous,  ridiculous  attitude  of  hav- 
ing no  other  choice  in  order  to  quiet  Lincoln's  suspicions,  and  assure  him  that  he 
was  not  to  be  cheated  by  Lovejoy,  and  the  trickery  by  which  Trumbull  outgener- 
aled him.  Well,  gentlemen,  I  think  they  will  have  a  nice  time  of  it  before  they 
get  through.  I  do  not  intend  to  give  them  any  chance  to  cheat  Lincoln  at  all  this 
time.  I  intend  to  relieve  him  of  all  anxiety  upon  that  subject,  and  spare  them 


115 

the  mortification  of  more  exposures  of  contracts  violated,  and  the  pledged  honor  of 
rogues  forfeited. 

But  I  wish  to  invite  your  attention  to  the  chief  points  at  issue  between  Mr.  Lin- 
coln and  myself  in  this  discussion.  Mr.  Lincoln  knowing  that  he  was  to  be  the  can- 
didate of  his  party  on  account  of  the  arrangement  of  which  I  have  already  spoken, 
knowing  that  be  was  to  receive  the  nomination  of  the  Convention  for  the  United 
States  Senate,  had  his  speech,  accepting  that  nomination,  all  written  and  committed 
to  memory,  ready  to  be  delivered  the  moment  the  nomination  was  announced.  Ac- 
cordingly, when  it  was  made,  he  was  in  readiness,  and  delivered  his  speech,  a 
portion  of  which  I  will  read,  in  order  that  I  may  state  his  political  principles  fairly, 
by  repeating  them  in  his  own  language : 

*;  We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  instituted  for  the  avowed 
4  bjtct,  and  with  the  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation ;  under 
the  operation  of  that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly 
augmented.  I  believe  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and 
passed.  *  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  Government 
cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to 
be  dissolved.  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  1  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be 
divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of 
slavery  will  arrest  the  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in 
the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push 
it  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  North  as  well  as 
South." 

There  you  have  Mr.  Lincoln's  first  and  main  proposition,  upon  which  he  basea  his 
claims,  stilted  in  his  own  language.  He  tells  you  that  this  Republic  cannot  endure 
permanently  divided  into  slave  and  free  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it  He  saya 
that  they  must  all  become  free  or  all  become  slave,  that  they  must  all  be  one  thing 
or  all  be  the  other,  or  this  Government  cannot  last.  Why  can  it  not  last,  if  we  will 
execute  the  Government  in  the  same  spirit  and  upon  the  same  principles  upon  which 
it  is  founded?  Lincoln,  by  his  proposition,  says  to  the  South,  "If  you  desire  to 
maintain  your  institutions  as  they  are  now,  you  must  not  be  satisfied  with  minding 
your  own  business,  but  you  must  invade  Illinois  and  all  the  other  Northern  States, 
establish  slavery  in  them,  and  make  it  universal ;"  and  in  the  same  language  he 
says  to  the  North,  "  You  must  not  be  content  with  regulating  your  own  affairs,  and 
minding  your  own  business,  but  if  you  desire  to  maintain  your  freedom,  you  must 
invade  the  Southern  States,  abolish  slavery  there  and  every  where,  in  order  to  have 
the  States  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other."  I  say  that  this  is  the  inevitable  and  irre- 
sistible result  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  argument,  inviting  a  warfare  between  the  North  and 
the  South,  to  be  carried  on  with  ruthless  vengeance,  until  the  one  section  or  the 
other  shall  be  driven  to  the  wall,  and  become  the  victim  of  the  rapacity  of  the  other. 
What  good  would  follow  such  a  system  of  warfare?  Suppose  the  North  should  succeed 
in  conquering  the  South,  how  much  would  she  be  the  gainer  ?  or  suppose  the  South 
should  conquer  the  North,  could  the  Union  be  preserved  in  that  way  ?  Is  this  sec- 
tional warfare  to  be  waged  between  Northern  States  and  Southern  States  until  they 
ull  shall  become  uniform  in  their  local  and  domestic  institutions  merely  because  Mr. 
Lincoln  says  that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,  and  pretends  tliat  this 
scriptural  quotation,  this  language  of  our  Lord  and  Master,  is  applicable  to  the 
American  Union  and  the  American  Constitution  ?  Washington  and  his  compeers,  in 
the  Convention  that  framed  the  Constitution,  made  this  Government  divided  inlo  free 
and  slave  States.  It  was  composed  then  of  thirteen  sovereign  and  independent 
States,  each  having  sovereign  authority  over  its  local  and  domestic  institutions,  and 
all  bound  together  by  the  Federal  Constitution.  Mr.  Lincoln  likens  that  bond 
of  the  Federal  Constitution,  joining  free  and  slave  States  together,  to  a  house 
divided  against  itself,  arid  says  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  God  and  cannot 
stand.  When  did  he  learn,  and  by  what  authority  does  he  proclaim,  that  this  Gov- 
ernment is  contrary  to  the  law  of  God  and  cannot  stand  ?  It  has  stood  thus  divided 


116 

into  free  and  slave  States  from  its  organization  up  to  this  day.  During  that  period 
we  have  increased  from  four  millions  to  thirty  millions  of  people ;  we  have  extended 
our  territory  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Pacih'e  ocean ;  we  have  acquired  the  Flori- 
das  and  Texas,  and  other  territory  sufficient  to  double  our  geographical  extent ;  we 
have  increased  in  population,  in  wealth,  and  in  power  beyond  any  example  on  earth ; 
we  have  risen  from  a  weak  and  feeble  power  to  become  the  terror  and  admiration  of 
the  civilized  world;  and  all  this  has  been  done  under  a  Constitution  which  Mr.  Lin- 
coln, in  substance,  says  is  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God,  and  under  a  Union  divided 
into  free  and  slave  States,  which  Mr.  Lincoln  thinks,  because  of  such  division,  can- 
not stand.  Surely,  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  wiser  man  than  those  who  framed  the  Govern- 
ment. Washington  did  not  believe,  nor  did  his  compatriots,  that  the  local  laws  and 
domestic  institutions  that  were  well  adapted  to  the  Green  Mountains  of  Vermont 
were  suited  to  the  rice  plantations  of  South  Carolina ;  they  did  not  believe  at  that 
day  that  in  a  Republic  so  broad  and  expanded  as  this,  containing  such  a  variety  of 
climate,  soil,  and  interest,  that  uniformity  in  the  local  laws  and  domestic  institutions 
was  either  desirable  or  possible.  They  believed  then  as  our  experience  has  proved 
to  us  now,  that  each  locality,  having  different  interests,  a  different  climate  and  dif- 
ferent surroundings,  required  different  local  laws,  local  policy  and  local  institutions, 
adapted  to  the  wants  of  that  locality.  Thus  our  Government  was  formed  on 
the  principle  of  diversity  in  the  local  institutions  and  laws,  and  not  on  that  of 
uniformity. 

As  my  time  flies,  I  can  only  glance  at  these  points  and  not  present  them  as  fully 
as  I  would  wish,  because  I  desire  to  bring  all  the  points  in  controversy  between  the 
two  parties  before  you  in  order  to  have  Mr.  Lincoln's  reply,  lie  makes  war  on  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  known  as  the  Dred  Scott  case.  I  wish 
to  say  to  you,  fellow-citizens,  that  I  have  no  war  to  make  on  that  decision,  or  any 
other  ever  rendered  by  the  Supreme  Court.  I  am  content  to  take  that  decision  as 
it  stands  delivered  by  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  on  earth,  a  tribunal  established 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  for  that  purpose,  and  hence  that  decision 
becomes  the  law  of  the  land,  binding  on  you,  on  me,  and  on  every  other  good  citizen, 
whether  we  like  it  or  not.  Hence  I  do  not  choose  to  go  into  an  argument  to  prove, 
before  this  audience,  whether  or  not  Chief  Justice  Taney  understood  the  law  better 
than  Abraham  Lincoln. 

Mr.  Lincoln  objects  to  that  decision,  first  and  mainly  because  it  deprives  the  negro 
of  the  rights  of  citizenship.  I  am  as  much  opposed  to  his  reason  for  that  objection 
as  I  am  to  the  objection  itself.  I  hold  that  a  negro  is  not  and  never  ought  to  be  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States.  I  hold  that  this  Government  was  made  on  the  white 
basis,  by  white  men,  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their  posterity  forever,  and 
should  be  administered  by  white  men  and  none  others.  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
Almighty  made  the  negro  capable  of  self-government.  I  am  aware  that  all  the  Ab- 
olition lecturers  that  you  find  traveling  about  through  the  country,  are  in  the  habit 
of  reading  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  prove  that  all  men  were  created  eq  rjal 
and  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  Mr.  Lincoln  is  very  much  in  the  habit  of 
following  in  the  track  of  Lovejoy  in  this  particular,  by  reading  that  part  of  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence  to  prove  that  the  negro  was  endowed  by  the  Almighty 
with  the  inalienable  right  of  equality  with  white  men.  Now,  I  say  to  you,  my 
fellow-citizens,  that  in  my  opinion,  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  had  no  reference 
to  the  negro  whatever,  when  they  declared  all  men  to  be  created  equal.  They  de- 
sired to  express  by  that  phrase  white  men,  men  of  European  birth  and  European 
descent,  and  had  no  reference  either  to  the  negro,  the  savage  Indians,  the  Fejee,  the 
Malay,  or  any  other  inferior  and  degraded  race,  when  they  spoke  of  the  equality  of 
men.  One  great  evidence  that  such  was  their  understanding,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
fact  that  at  that  time  every  one  of  the  thirteen  colonies  was  a  slaveholding  colony, 
every  signer  of  the  Declaration  represented  a  slaveholding  constituency,  and  we 
know  that  no  one  of  them  emancipated  lu's  slaves,  much  less  offered  citizenship  to 


117 

them  when  they  signed  the  Declaration ;  and  yet,  if  they  intended  to  declare  that 
the  negro  was  the  equal  of  the  white  man,  and  entitled  by  divine  right  to  an  equal- 
ity with  him,  they  were  bound,  as  honest  men,  that  day  and  hour  to  have  put 
their  negroes  on  an  equality  with  themselves.  Instead  of  doing  so,  with  uplifted 
eyes  to  heaven  they  implored  the  divine  blessing  upon  them,  during  the  seven  years' 
bloody  war  they  had  to  fight  to  maintain  that  Declaration,  never  dreaming  that  they 
were  violating  divine  law  by  still  holding  the  negroes  in  bondage  and  depriving  them 
of  equality. 

My  friends,  I  am  in  favor  of  preserving  this  Government  as  our  fathers  made  it 
It  does  not  follow  by  any  means  that  because  a  negro  is  not  your  equal  or  mine,  that 
hence  he  must  necessarily  be  a  slave.  On  the  contrary,  it  does  follow  that  we  ought  to 
extand  to  the  negro  every  right,  every  privilege,  every  immunity  which  lie  is  capa- 
ble of  enjoying,  consistent  with  the  good  of  society.  When  you  ask  me  what  these 
rights  are,  what  their  nature  and  extent  is,  I  tell  you  that  that  is  a  question  which 
each  State  of  this  Union  must  decide  for  itself.  Illinois  has  already  decided  the 
question.  We  have  decided  that  the  negro  must  not  be  a  slave  within  our  limit*, 
but  we  have  also  decided  that  the  negro  shall  not  be  a  citizen  within  our  limits ;  that 
he  shall  not  vote,  hold  office,  or  exercise  any  political  rights.  I  maintain  that  Illi- 
nois, as  a  sovereign  State,  has  a  right  thus  to  fix  her  policy  with  reference  to  the 
relation  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro ;  but  while  we  had  that  right  to  de- 
cide the  question  for  ourselves,  we  must  recognize  the  same  right  in  Kentucky  and 
in  every  other  State  to  make  the  same  decision,  or  a  different  one.  Having  decided 
our  own  policy  with  reference  to  the  black  race,  we  must  leave  Kentucky  and  Mis- 
souri and  every  other  State  perfectly  free  to  make  just  such  a  decision  as  they  see 
proper  on  that  question. 

Kentucky  has  decided  that  question  for  herself.  She  has  said  that  within  her 
limits  a  negro  shall  not  exercise  any  political  rights,  and  she  has  also  said  that  a  por- 
tion of  the  negroes  under  the  laws  of  that  State  shall  be  slaves.  She  had  as  much 
right  to  adopt  that  as  her  policy  as  we  had  to  adopt  the  contrary  for  our  policy. 
New  York  has  decided  that  in  that  State  a  negro  may  vote  if  he  has  $250  worth  of 
property,  and  if  he  owns  that  much  he  may  vote  upon  an  equality  with  the  white 
man.  I,  for  one,  am  utterly  opposed  to  negro  suffrage  any  where  and  under  any  cir- 
cumstances ;  yet,  inasmuch  as  the  Supreme  Court  have  decided  in  the  celebrated 
Dred  Scott  case  that  a  State  has  a  right  to  confer  the  privilege  of  voting  upon  free 
negroes,  I  am  not  going  to  make  war  upon  New  York  because  she  has  adopted  a 
policy  repugnant  to  my  feelings.  But  New  York  must  mind  her  own  business,  and 
keep  her  negro  suffrage  to  herself,  and  not  attempt  to  force  it  upon  us. 

In  the  State  of  Maine  they  have  decided  that  a  negro  may  vote  and  hold  office 
on  an  equality  with  a  white  man.  I  had  occasion  to  say  to  the  Senators  from 
Maine,  in  a  discussion  last  session,  that  if  they  thought  that  the  white  people  within 
the  limits  of  their  State  were  no  better  than  negroes,  I  would  not  quarrel  with  them 
for  it,  but  they  must  not  say  that  my  white  constituents  of  Illinois  were  no  better 
than  negroes,  or  we  would  be  sure  to  quarrel. 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  covers  the  whole  question,  and  declares  that  eaeli  Slate 
has  the  right  to  settle  this  question  of  suffrage  for  itself,  and  all  questions  as  to  the 
relations  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro.  Judge  Taney  expressly  lays  down 
the  doctrine.  I  receive  it  as  law,  and  I  say  that  while  those  States  are  adopting  reg- 
ulations on  that  subject  disgusting  and  abhorrent,  according  to  my  views,  I  will  not 
make  war  on  them  if  they  will  mind  their  own  business  and  let  us  alone. 

I  now  come  back  to  the  question,  why  cannot  this  Union  exist  forever  divided  into 
free  and  slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it  ?  It  can  thus  exist  if  each  State  will 
carry  out  the  principles  upon  which  our  institutions  were  founded,  to  wit :  the  right 
of  each  State  to  do  as  it  pleases,  without  meddling  with  its  neighbors.  Just  act  upon 
that  great  principle,  and  this  Union  will  not  only  live  forever,  but  it  will  extend  and 
expand  until  it  covers  the  whole  continent,  and  makes  this  confederacy  one  grand, 
ocean-bound  Republic.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that  we  are  yet  a  young  nation, 


118 

growing  with  a  rapidity  unequaled  in  the  history  of  the  world,  that  our  national  in- 
crease is  great,  and  that  the  emigration  from  the  old  world  is  increasing,  requiring 
us  to  expand  and  acquire  new  territory  from  time  to  time,  in  order  to  give  our  peo 
plo  land  to  live  upon.  If  we  live  upon  the  principle  of  State  rights  and  State  sov- 
ereignty, each  State  regulating  its  own  affairs  and  minding  its  own  business,  we  can 
go  on  and  extend  indefinitely,  just  as  fast  and  as  far  as  we  need  the  territory.  The 
time  may  come,  indeed  has  now  come,  when  our  interests  would  be  advanced  by  the 
acquisition  of  the  Island  of  Cuba.  When  we  get  Cuba  we  must  take  it  as  we  find 
it,  leaving  the  people  to  decide  the  question  of  slavery  for  themselves,  without  inter- 
ference on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Government,  or  of  any  State  of  this  Union.  So, 
when  it  becomes  necessary  to  acquire  any  portion  of  Mexico  or  Canada,  or  of  this 
contirent  or  the  adjoining  islands,  we  must  take  them  as  we  find  them,  leaving  tho 
people  free  to  do  as  they  please — to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  they  choose.  I  never 
have  inquired  and  never  will  inquire  whether  a  new  State,  applying  for  admission, 
has  slavery  or  not  for  one  of  her  institutions.  If  the  Constitution  that  is  presented 
be  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people,  and  embodies  their  will,  and  they  have  the 
requisite  population,  I  will  admit  them  with  slavery  or  without  it,  just  as  that  people 
shall  determine.  My  objection  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  did  not  consist  in  the 
fact  that  it  made  Kansas  a  slave  State.  I  would  have  been  as  much  opposed  to  its 
admission  under  such  a  Constitution  as  a  free  State  as  I  was  opposed  to  its  admission 
under  it  as  a  slave  State.  I  hold  that  that  was  a  question  which  that  people  had  a 
right  to  decide  for  themselves,  and  that  no  power  on  earth  ought  to  have  interfered 
with  that  decision.  In  my  opinion,  the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  not  the  act 
and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  did  not  embody  their  will,  and  the  recent 
election  in  that  Territory,  at  which  it  was  voted  down  by  nearly  ten  to  one, 
shows  conclusively  that  I  was  right  in  saying,  when  the  Constitution  was  pre- 
sented, that  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people,  and  did  not  embody 
their  will. 

If  we  wish  to  preserve  our  institutions  in  their  purity,  and  transmit  them  nnim- 
paired  to  our  latest  posterity,  we  must  preserve  with  religious  good  faith  that  great 
principle  of  self-government  which  guaranties  to  each  and  every  State,  old  and  new, 
the  right  to  make  just  such  Constitutions  as  they  desire,  and  come  into  the  Union 
with  their  own  Constitution,  and  not  one  palmed  upon  them.  Whenever  you  sanc- 
tion the  doctrine  that  Congress  may  crowd  a  Constitution  down  the  throats  of  an 
unwilling  people,  against  their  consent,  you  will  subvert  the  great  fundamental  prin- 
ciple upon  which  all  our  free  institutions  rest.  In  the  future  I  have  no  fear  that  the 
attempt  will  ever  be  made.  President  Buchanan  declared  in  his  annual  message,  that 
hereafter  the  rule  adopted  in  the  Minnesota  case,  requiring  a  Constitution  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people,  should  be  followed  in  all  future  cases,  and  if  he  stands  by  that 
recommendation  there  will  be  no  division  in  the  Democratic  party  on  that  principle 
in  the  future.  Hence,  the  great  mission  of  the  Democracy  is  to  unite  the  fraternal 
feeling  of  the  whole  country,  restore  peace  and  quiet,  by  teaching  each  State  to 
mind  its  own  business,  and  regulate  its  own  domestic  affairs,  and  all  to  unite  in  car- 
rying out  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  thus  to  preserve  the  Union 
and  render  it  perpetual  in  all  time  to  come.  Why  should  we  not  act  as  our  fathers 
who  made  the  Government  ?  There  was  no  sectional  strife  in  Washington's  army. 
They  were  all  brethren  of  a  common  confederacy ;  they  fought  under  a  common 
flag  that  they  might  bestow  upon  their  posterity  a  common  destiny,  and  to  this  end 
they  poured  out  their  blood  in  common  streams,  and  shared,  in  some  instances,  a 
common  grave. 


119 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  REPLY. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  There  is  very  much  in  the  principles  that  Judge 
Douglas  has  here  enunciated  that  I  most  cordially  approve,  and  over  which  I  shall 
have  no  controversy  with  him.  In  so  far  as  he  has  insisted  that  all  the  States  have 
the  right  to  do  exactly  as  they  please  about  all  their  domestic  relations,  including 
that  of  slavery,  I  agree  entirely  with  him.  He  places  me  wrong  in  spite  of  all  I 
can  tell  him,  though  I  repeat  it  again  and  again,  insisting  that  I  have  no  difference 
with  him  upon  this  subject.  I  have  made  a  great  many  speeches,  some  of  which 
have  been  printed,  and  it  will  be  utterly  impossible  for  him  to  find  any  thing  that  I 
have  ever  put  in  print  contrary  to  what  I  now  say  upon  this  subject.  I  hold  myself 
under  constitutional  obligations  to  allow  the  people  in  all  the  States,  without  interfer- 
ence, direct  or  indirect,  to  do  exactly  as  they  please,  and  I  deny  that  I  have  any  in- 
clination to  interfere  with  them,  even  if  there  were  no  such  constitutional  obligation. 
I  can  only  say  again  that  I  am  placed  improperly — altogether  improperly,  in  spite  of 
all  I  can  say — when  it  is  insisted  that  I  entertain  any  other  view  or  purposes  in  re- 
gard to  that  matter. 

While  I  am  upon  this  subject,  I  will  make  some  answers  briefly  to  certain  propo- 
sitions that  Judge  Douglas  has  put.  He  says,  "  Why  can't  this  Union  endure  per- 
manently, half  slave  and  half  free  ?"  I  have  said  that  I  supposed  it  could  not,  and 
I  will  try,  before  this  new  audience,  to  give  briefly  some  of  the  reasons  for  entertain- 
ing that  opinion.  Another  form  of  his  question  is,  "  Why  can't  we  let  it  stand  as 
our  fathers  placed  it  ?"  That  is  the  exact  difficulty  between  us.  I  say,  that  Judge 
Douglas  and  his  friends  have  changed  them  from  the  position  in  which  our  fathers 
originally  placed  it.  I  say,  in  the  way  our  fathers  originally  left  the  slavery  question, 
the  institution  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  and  the  public  mind  rested 
in  the  belief  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  I  say  when  this  Gov- 
ernment was  first  established,  it  was  the  policy  of  its  founders  to  prohibit  the  spread 
of  slavery  into  the  new  Territories  of  the  United  States,  where  it  had  not  existed. 
But  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  have  broken  up  that  policy,  and  placed  it  upon  a 
new  basis  by  which  it  is  to  become  national  and  perpetual.  All  I  have  asked  or 
desired  any  where  is  that  it  should  be  placed  back  again  upon  the  basis  that  the 
fathers  of  our  Government  originally  placed  it  upon.  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  would 
become  extinct,  for  all  time  to  come,  if  we  but  readopted  the  policy  of  the  fathers 
by  restricting  it  to  the  limits  it  has  already  covered — restricting  it  from  the  new 
Territories. 

I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  at  great  length  on  this  branch  of  the  subject  at  this  time, 
but  allow  me  to  repeat  one  thing  that  I  have  stated  before.  Brooks,  the  man  who 
assaulted  Senator  Sumner  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  and  who  was  complimented 
with  dinners,  and  silver  pitchers,  and  gold-headed  canes,  and  a  good  many  other 
things  for  that  feat,  in  one  of  his  speeches  declared  that  when  this  Government  was 
originally  established,  nobody  expected  that  the  institution  of  slavery  would  last  until 
this  day.  That  was  but  the  opinion  of  one  man,  but  it  was  such  an  opinion  as  we 
can  never  get  from  Judge  Douglas  or  anybody  in  favor  of  slavery  in  the  North  at 
all.  You  can  sometimes  get  it  from  a  Southern  man.  He  said  at  the  same  time 
that  the  framers  of  our  Government  did  not  have  the  knowledge  that  experience  has 
taught  us — that  experience  and  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin  have  taught  us  that 
the  perpetuation  of  slavery  is  a  necessity.  He  insisted,  therefore,  upon  its  being 
changed  from  the  basis  upon  which  the  fathers  of  the  Government  left  it  to  the  basis 
of  its  perpetuation  and  nationalization. 

I  insist  that  this  is  the  difference  between  Judge  Douglas  and  myself — that  Judge 
Douglas  is  helping  that  change  along.  I  insist  upon  this  Government  being  placed 
where  our  fathers  originally  placed  it. 

I  remember  Judge  Douglas  once  said  that  he  saw  the  evidences  on  the  statute 
books  of  Congress,  of  a  policy  in  the  origin  of  Government  to  divide  slavery  and 


120 

freedom  by  a  geographical  line— that  he  saw  an  indisposition  to  maintain  that  policy, 
and  therefore  he  set  about  studying  up  a  way  to  settle  the  institution  on  the  right 
basis — the  basis  which  he  thought  it  ought  to  have  been  placed  upon  at  first ;  and 
in  that  speech  he  confesses  that  he  seeks  to  place  it,  not  upon  the  basis  that  the 
fathers  placed  it  upon,  but  upon  one  gotten  up  on  "  original  principles."  When  he 
asks  me  why  we  cannot  get  along  with  it  in  the  attitude  where  our  fathers  placed  it, 
he  had  better  clear  up  the  evidences  that  h<3  has  himself  changed  it  from  that  basis ; 
'.hat  he  has  himself  been  chiefly  instrumental  in  changing  the  policy  of  the  fathers. 
Any  one  who  will  read  his  speech  of  the  22d  of  last  March,  will  see  that  he  there 
makes  an  open  confession,  showing  that  he  set  about  fixing  the  institution  upon  an 
altogether  different  set  of  principles.  I  think  I  have  fully  answered  him  when  he 
asks  me  why  we  cannot  let  it  alone  upon  the  basis  where  our  fathers  left  it,  by 
showing  that  he  has  himself  changed  the  whole  policy  of  the  Government  in  that 
regard. 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  in  regard  to  this  matter  about  a  contract  that  was  made  be- 
tween Judge  Trumbull  and  myself,  and  all  that  long  portion  of  Judge  Douglas's 
speech  on  this  subject — I  wish  simply  to  say  what  I  have  said  to  him  before,  that  he 
cannot  know  whether  it  is  true  or  not,  and  I  do  know  that  there  is  not  a  word  of 
truth  in  it.  And  I  have  told  him  so  before.  I  don't  want  any  harsh  language  in- 
dulged in,  but  I  do  not  know  how  to  deal  with  this  persistent  insisting  on  a  story 
that  I  know  to  be  utterly  without  truth.  It  used  to  be  a  fashion  amongst  men  that 
when  a  charge  was  made,  some  sort  of  proof  was  brought  forward  to  establish  it,  and 
if  no  proof  was  found  to  exist,  the  charge  was  dropped.  I  don't  know  how  to  meet 
this  kind  of  an  argument.  I  don't  want  to  have  a  fight  with  Judge  Douglas,  and  I 
have  no  way  of  making  an  argument  up  into  the  consistency  of  a  corn-cob  and  stop- 
ping his  mouth  with  it.  All  I  can  do  is,  good-humoredly  to  say  that,  from  the  be- 
ginning to  the  end  of  all  that  story  about  a  bargain  between  Judge  Trumbull  and 
myself,  there  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  it.  I  can  only  ask  him  to  show  some  sort  of 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  his  story.  He  brings  forward  here  and  reads  from  what  he 
contends  is  a  speech  by  James  H.  Matheny,  charging  such  a  bargain  between  Trum- 
bull and  myself.  My  own  opinion  is  that  Matheny  did  do  some  such  immoral  thing 
as  to  tell  a  story  that  he  knew  nothing  about.  I  believe  he  did.  I  contradicted  it  in- 
stantly, and  it  has  been  contradicted  by  Judge  Trumbull,  while  nobody  has  produced 
any  proof,  because  there  is  none.  Now,  whether  the  speech  which  the  Judge  brings 
forward  here  is  really  the  one  Matheny  made  I  do  not  know,  and  I  hope  the  Judge 
will  pardon  me  for  doubting  the  genuineness  of  this  document,  since  his  production 
of  those  Springfield  resolutions  at  Ottawa.  I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  at  any  great 
length  upon  this  matter.  I  can  say  nothing  when  a  long  story  like  this  is  told,  ex- 
cept it  is  not  true,  and  demand  that  he  who  insists  upon  it  shall  produce  some  proof. 
That  is  all  any  man  can  do,  and  I  leave  it  in  that  way,  for  I  know  of  no  other  way 
of  dealing  with  it. 

The  Judge  has  gone  over  a  long  account  of  the  old  Whig  and  Democratic  parties, 
and  it  connects  itself  with  this  charge  against  Trumbull  and  myself.  He  says  that 
they  agreed  upon  a  compromise  in  regard  to  the  slavery  question  in  1850 ;  that 
in  a  National  Democratic  Convention  resolutions  were  passed  to  abide  by  that  com- 
promise as  a  finality  upon  the  slavery  question.  He  also  says  that  the  Whig  party 
in  National  Convention  agreed  to  abide  by  and  regard  as  a  finality  the  Compromise 
of  1850.  I  understand  the  Judge  to  be  altogether  right  about  that;  I  understand 
that  part  of  the  history  of  the  country  as  stated  by  him  to  be  correct.  I  recollect 
that  I,  as  a  member  of  that  party,  acquiesced  in  that  compromise.  I  recollect  in 
the  Presidential  election  which  followed,  when  we  had  General  Scott  up  for  the 
Presidency,  Judge  Douglas  was  around  berating  us  Whigs  as  Abolitionists,  precisely 
as  he  does  to-day — not  a  bit  of  difference.  I  have  often  heard  him.  We  could  do 
nothing  when  the  old  Whig  party  was  alive  that  was  not  Abolitionism,  but  it  has  got 
an  extremely  good  name  since  it  has  passed  away. 

When  that  Compromise  was  made  it  did  not  repeal  the  old  Missouri  Compromise. 


It  left  a  region  of  United  States  territory  half  as  large  as  the  present  territory  of 
die  United  States,  north  of  the  line  of  36  degrees  30  minutes,  in  which  slavery  was 
prohibited  by  aet  of  Congress.  This  compromise  did  not  repeal  that  one.  It  did 
not  affect  or  propose  to  repeal  it.  But  at  last  it  became  Judge  Douglas's  duty,  as 
he  thought  (and  I  find  no  fault  with  him),  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Terri- 
tories, to  bring  in  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  a  Territorial  Government — first  of  one, 
then  of  two  Territories  north  of  that  line.  When  he  did  so  it  ended  in  his  inserting 
a  provision  substantially  repealing  the  Missouri  Compromise.  That  was  because 
the  Compromise  of  1850  had  not  repealed  it.  And  now  I  ask  why  he  could  not 
have  let  that  compromise  alone  ?  We  were  quiet  from  the  agitation  of  the  sla-s  erj 
question.  We  were  making  no  fuss  about  it.  All  had  acquiesced  in  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850.  We  never  had  been  seriously  disturbed  by  any  abolition  agita- 
tion before  that  period.  When  he  came  to  form  governments  for  the  Territories 
north  of  the  line  of  36  degrees  30  minutes,  why  could  he  not  have  let  that  matter 
stand  as  it  was  standing  ?  Was  it  necessary  to  the  organization  of  a  Territory  ? 
Not  at  all.  Iowa  lay  north  of  the  line  and  had  been  organized  as  a  Territory  and 
come  into  the  Union  as  a  State  without  disturbing  that  Compromise.  There  was  no 
sort  of  necessity  for  destroying  it  to  organize  these  Territories.  But,  gentlemen,  it 
would  take  up  all  my  time  to  meet  all  the  little  quibbling  arguments  of  Judge  Doug- 
las to  show  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  repealed  by  the  Compromise  of  1850. 
My  own  opinion  is,  that  a  careful  investigation  of  all  the  arguments  to  sustain  the  posi- 
tion that  that  Compromise  was  virtually  repealed  by  the  Compromise  of  1850,  would 
show  that  they  are  the  merest  fallacies.  I  have  the  Report  that  Judge  Douglas  first 
brought  into  Congress  at  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  which 
in  its  original  form  did  not  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  he  there  expressly 
ntated  that  he  had  forborne  to  do  so  because  it  had  not  been  done  by  the  Compro- 
mise of  1850.  I  close  this  part  of  the  discussion  on  my  part  by  asking  him  the 
question  again,  "  Why,  when  we  had  peace  under  the  Missouri  Compromise,  could 
you  not  have  let  it  alone?" 

In  complaining  of  what  I  said  in  my  speech  at  Springfield,  in  which  he  says  I  ac- 
cepted my  nomination  for  the  Senatorship  (where,  by  the  way,  he  is  at  fault,  for  if 
he  will  examine  it,  he  will  find  no  acceptance  in  it),  he  again  quotes  that  portion  ir 
which  I  said  that  "  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  Let  me  say  a  word 
tri  regard  to  that  matter. 

He  tries  to  persuade  us  that  there  must  be  a  variety  in  the  different  institution* 
of  the  States  of  the  Union ;  that  that  variety  necessarily  proceeds  from  the  variety 
of  soil,  climate,  of  the  face  of  the  country,  and  the  difference  in  the  natural  feature*, 
of  the  States.  I  agree  to  all  that.  Have  these  very  matters  ever  produced  any 
difficulty  amongst  us  ?  Not  at  all.  Have  we  ever  had  any  quarrel  over  the  fact 
that  they  have  laws  in  Louisiana  designed  to  regulate  the  commerce  that  springs 
from  the  production  of  sugar  ?  Or  because  we  have  a  different  class  relative  to  the 
production  of  flour  in  this  State  ?  Have  they  produced  any  differences  ?  Not  at 
all.  They  are  the  very  cements  of  this  Union.  They  don't  make  the  house  a 
house  divided  against  itself  They  are  the  props  that  hold  up  the  house  and  sustain 
the  Union. 

But  has  it  been  so  with  this  element  of  slavery  ?  Have  we  not  qfWays  had  quar- 
rels and  difficulties  over  it?  And  when  will  we  cease  to  have  quarrels  over  i\  * 
Like  causes  produce  like  effects.  It  is  worth  while  to  observe  that  we  have  gene; 
ally  had  comparative  peace  upon  the  slavery  question,  and  that  there  has  been  i » 
cause  for  alarm  until  it  was  excited  by  the  effort  to  spread  it  into  ncit  territory 
Wlienever  it  has  been  limited  to  its  present  bounds,  and  there  has  been  no  effort  U 
spread  it,  there  has  been  peace.  All  the  trouble  and  convulsion  has  proceeded  frou 
efforts  to  spread  it  over  more  territory.  It  was  thus  at  the  date  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  It  was  so  again  with  the  annexation  of  Texas ;  so  with  the  territory 
acquired  by  the  Mexican  war,  and  it  is  so  now.  Whenever  there  has  been  an  effort 
to  spread  it  there  has  been  agitation  and  resistance.  Now,  I  appeal  to  this  audience 


122 

(very  few  of  whom  are  my  political  friends),  as  national  men,  whether  we  have 
reason  to  expect  that  the  agitation  in  regard  to  this  subject  will  cease  while  the 
causes  that  tend  to  reproduce  agitation  are  actively  at  work  ?  Will  not  the  same 
cause  that  produced  agitation  in  1820,  when  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  formed 
• — that  which  produced  the  agitation  upon  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  at  other 
times — work  out  the  same  results  always  ?  Do  you  think  that  the  nature  of  man 
will  be  changed — that  the  same  causes  that  produced  agitation  at  one  time  will  not 
have  the  same  effect  at  another  ? 

This  has  been  the  result  so  far  as  my  observation  of  the  slavery  question  and  my 
reading  in  history  extends.  What  right  have  we  then  to  hope  that  the  trouble  will 
cease — that  the  agitation  will  come  to  an  end — until  it  shall  either  be  placed  back 
where  it  originally  stood,  and  where  the  fathers  originally  placed  it,  or,  on  the  other 
hand,  until  it  shall  entirely  master  all  opposition  ?  This  is  the  view  I  entertain,  and 
this  is  the  reason  why  I  entertained  it,  as  Judge  Douglas  has  read  from  my  Spring- 
field speech. 

Now,  my  friends,  there  is  one  other  thing  that  I  feel  myself  under  some  sort  of 
obligation  to  mention.  Judge  Douglas  has  here  to-day — in  a  very  rambling  way.  I 
was  about  saying — spoken  of  the  platforms  for  which  he  seeks  to  hold  me  responsi- 
ble. He  says,  "Why  can't  you  come  out  and  make  an  open  avowal  of  principles  in 
all  places  alike  ?"  and  he  reads  from  an  advertisement  that  he  says  was  used  to  notify 
the  people  of  a  speech  to  be  made  by  Judge  Trumbull  at  Waterloo.  In  commenting 
on  it  he  desires  to  know  whether  we  cannot  speak  frankly  and  manfully  as  he  and 
his  friends  do !  How,  I  ask,  do  his  friends  speak  out  their  own  sentiments  ?  A  Con- 
vention of  his  party  in  this  State  met  on  the  21st  of  April,  at  Springfield,  and  passed 
a  set  of  resolutions  which  they  proclaim  to  the  country  as  their  platform.  This  does 
constitute  their  platform,  and  it  is  because  Judge  Douglas  claims  it  is  his  platform — 
that  these  are  his  principles  and  purposes — that  he  has  a  right  to  declare  he  speaks 
his  sentiments  *•  frankly  and  manfully."  On  the  9th  of  June,  Col.  John  Dougherty, 
Gov.  Reynolds  and  others,  calling  themselves  National  Democrats,  met  in  Springfield 
and  adopted  a  set  of  resolutions  which  are  as  easily  understood,  as  plain  and  as 
definite  in  stating  to  the  country  and  to  the  world  what  they  believed  in  and  would 
stand  upon,  as  Judge  Douglas's  platform.  Now,  what  is  the  reason,  that  Judge 
Douglas  is  not  willing  that  Col.  Dougherty  and  Gov.  Reynolds  should  stand  upon 
their  own  written  and  printed  platform  as  well  as  he  upon  his  ?  Why  must  he 
look  farther  than  their  platform  when  he  claims  himself  to  stand  by  his  platform  ? 

Again,  in  reference  to  our  platform:  On  the  16th  of  June  the  Republicans  had 
their  Convention  and  published  their  platform,  which  is  as  clear  and  distinct  as 
Judge  Douglas's.  In  it  they  spoke  their  principles  as  plainly  and  as  definitely  to  the 
world.  What  is  the  reason  that  Judge  Douglas  is  not  willing  I  should  stand  upon  that 
platform  ?  Why  must  he  go  around  hunting  for  some  one  who  is  supporting  me,  or 
has  supported  me  at  some  time  in  his  life,  and  who  has  said  something  at  some  time 
contrary  to  that  platform  ?  Does  the  Judge  regard  that  rule  as  a  good  one  ?  If  it 
turn  out  that  the  rule  is  a  good  one  for  me — that  I  am  responsible'  for  any  and  every 
opinion  that  any  man  has  expressed  who  is  my  friend — then  it  is  a  good  rule  for 
him.  I  ask,  is  it  not  as  good  a  rule  for  him  as  it  is  for  me  ?  In  my  opinion,  it  ia 
not  a  good  rule  for  either  of  us.  Do  you  think  differently,  Judge  ? 

Mr.  Douglas — "  I  do  not." 

Mr.  Lincoln — Judge  Douglas  says  he  does  not  think  differently.  I  am  glad  of  it. 
Then  can  he  tell  me  why  he  is  looking  up  resolutions  of  five  or  six  years  ago,  and 
insisting  that  they  were  my  platform,  notwithstanding  my  protest  that  they  are  not, 
and  never  were  my  platform,  and  my  pointing  out  the  platform  of  the  State  Conven- 
tion which  he  delights  to  say  nominated  me  for  the  Senate  ?  I  cannot  see  what  he 
means  by  parading  these  resolutions,  if  it  is  not  to  hold  me  responsible  for  them  in 
some  way.  If  he  says  to  me  here,  that  he  does  not  hold  the  rule  to  be  good,  one 
way  or  the  other,  I  do  not  comprehend  how  he  could  answer  me  more  fully  if  he 
answered  me  at  greater  length.  I  will  therefore  put  in  as  my  answer  to  the  resoiu 


123 

tions  that  he  has  hunted  up  against  me,  what  I,  as  a  lawyer,  would  call  a  good  plea 
to  a  bad  declaration.  I  understand  that  it  is  a  maxim  of  law,  that  a  poor  plea  may 
be  a  good  plea  to  a  bad  declaration.  I  think  that  the  opinions  the  Judge  brings  from 
those  who  support  me,  yet  differ  from  me,  is  a  bad  declaration  against  me ;  but  if  I 
can  bring  the  same  things  against  him,  I  am  putting  in  a  good  plea  to  that  kind  of 
declaration,  and  now  I  propose  to  try  it. 

At  Freeport  Judge  Douglas  occupied  a  large  part  of  his  time  in  producing  reso- 
lutions and  documents  of  various  sorts,  as  I  understood,  to  make  me  somehow  respon- 
sible for  them ;  and  I  propose  now  doing  a  little  of  the  same  sort  of  thing  for  him. 
In  1850  a  very  clever  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Thompson  Campbell,  a  personal 
fri.nd  of  Judge  Douglas  and  myself,  a  political  friend  of  Judge  Douglas  and  oppo- 
nent of  mine,  was  a  candidate  for  Congress  in  the  Galena  District.  He  was  interro- 
gated as  to  his  views  on  this  same  slavery  question.  I  have  here  before  me  the 
interrogatories  and  Campbell's  answers  to  them.  I  will  read  them : 

INTERROGATORIES. 

Ipf,  Will  you.  ir'  el  ctod,  vote  for  and  cordially  support  a  bill  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Ter- 
ritories oi'  the  United  States? 

id.   Will  you  vote  lor  and  support  a  bill  abolishing  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia? 

M.  Will  you  oppose  the  admission  of  any  slave  States  which  may  be  formed  out  of  Texas  or 
the  Territories? 

4th.  Will  you  vote  for  and  advocate  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  passed  at  the  recent 
session  of  Congress? 

5th.  Will  you  advocate  and  vote  for  the  election  of  a  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
who  shall  be  willing  to  organize  the  committee  of  that  House  so  as  to  give  the  free  States  their 
just  influence  in  the  business  of  legislation? 

6th.  What  are  your  views,  not  only  as  to  the  constitutional  right  of  Congress  to  prohibit  the 
slave-trade  between  the  States,  but  also  as  to  the  expediency  of  exercising  that  right  immediately? 

CAMPBELL'S  REPLY. 

To  the  first  and  second  interrogatories,  I  answer  unequivocally  in  the  affirmative. 

To  the  third  interrogatory  I  reply,  that  I  am  opposed  to  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States 
into  the  Union,  that  may  be  formed  out  of  Texan  or  any  other  Territory. 

To  the  fourth  and  fifth  interrogatories  I  unhesitatingly  answer  in  the  affirmative. 

To  the  sixth  interrogatory  I  reply,  that  so  long  as  the  slave  States  continue  to  treat  slaves  as 
articles  of  commerce,  the  Constitution  confers  power  on  Congress  to  pass  laws  regulating  that 
peculiar  COMMERCE,  and  that  the  protection  of  Human  Rights  imperatively  demands  the  inter- 
position of  every  constitutional  means  to  prevent  this  most  inhuman  and  iniquitous  traffic. 

T.  CAMPBELL. 

I  want  to  say  here  that  Thompson  Campbell  was  elected  to  Congress  on  that  plat- 
form, as  the  Democratic  candidate  in  the  Galena  District,  against  Martin  P.  Sweet. 

Judge  Douglas — "  Give  me  the  date  of  the  letter." 

Mr.  Lincoln — The  time  Campbell  ran  was  in  1850.  I  have  not  the  exact  date 
here.  It  was  some  time  in  1850  that  these  interrogatories  were  put  and  the  answer 
given.  Campbell  was  elected  to  Congress,  and  served  out  his  term.  I  think  a  sec- 
ond election  came  up  before  he  served  out  his  term  and  he  was  not  re-elected. 
Whether  defeated  or  not  nominated,  I  do  not  know.  [Mr.  Campbell  was  nominated 
for  re-election  by  the  Democratic  party,  by  acclamation. J  At  the  end  of  his  term 
his  very  good  friend,  Judge  Douglas,  got  him  a  high  office  from  President  Pierce, 
and  sent  him  off  to  California.  Is  not  that  the  fact?  Just  at  the  end  of  his  term  in 
Congress  it  appears  that  our  mutual  friend  Judge  Douglas  got  our  mutual  friend 
Campbell  a  good  office,  and  sent  him  to  California  upon  it.  And  not  only  so,  but  on 
the  27th  of  last  month,  when  Judge  Douglas  and  myself  spoke  at  Freeport  in  joint 
discussion,  there  was  his  same  friend  Campbell,  come  all  the  way  from  California,  to 
help  the  Judge  beat  me ;  and  there  was  poor  Martin  P.  Sweet  standing  on  the  plat- 
form, trying  to  help  poor  me  to  be  elected.  That  is  true  of  one  of  Judge  Douglas's 
friend-. 

So  again,  in  that  same  race  of  1850,  there  was  a  Congressional  Convention 
assembled  at  Joliet,  and  it  nominated  It.  S.  Molony  for  Congress,  and  unanimous!/ 
adopted  the  following  resolution  : 


124 

Resolved-,  That  we  arc  uncompromisingly  opposed  to  the  extension  of  slavery  5  and  while  we 
would  not  make  such  opposition  a  ground  of  interference  with  the  interests  of  the  States  where  it 
exists,  yet  we  moderately  but  firmly  insist  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  oppose  its  extension 
into  Territory  now  free,  by  all  means  compatible  with  the  obligations  of  the  Constitution,  and  with 
good  faith  to  our  sister  States ;  that  these  principles  were  recognized  by  the  Ordinance  of  1787, 
which  received  the  sanction  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  who  is  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  the  great 
oracle  and  expounder  of  our  faith. 

Subsequently  the  same  interrogatories  were  propounded  to  Dr.  Molony  which  had 
bceu  addressed  to  Campbell,  as  above,  with  the  exception  of  the  6th,  respecting  the 
inter-State  slave-trade,  to  which  Dr.  Molony,  the  Democratic  nominee  for  Congress* 
replied  as  follows : 

I  received  the  written  interrogatories  this  day,  and  as  you  will  see  by  the  La  Salle  Democrat  and 
Ottawa  Free  Trader,  I  took  at  Peru  on  the  5th  and  at  Ottawa  on  the  7th,  the  affirmative  side  of 
interrogatories  1st  and  2d,  and  in  relation  to  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  from  freo. 
Territory,  my  position  taken  at  these  meetings,  as  correctly  reported  in  said  papers,  was  empliaticatty 
and  distinctly  opposed  to  it.  In  relation  to  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  from  Texas, 
whether  I  shall  go  against  it  or  not  will  depend  upon  the  opinion  that  I  may  hereafter  form  of  the 
true  meaning  and  nature  of  the  resolutions  of  annexation.  If.  by  said  resolutions,  the  honor  and 
good  faith  of  the  nation  is  pledged  to  admit  more  slave  States  from  Texas  when  she  (Texas) 
may  apply  for  the  admission  of  such  State,  then  I  should,  if  in  Congress,  vote  for  their  admission. 
But  if  not  so  PLEDGED  and  bound  by  sacred  contract,  then  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  more  slave 
States  from  Texas  would  iiever  receive  my  vote. 

To  your  fourth  interrogatory  I  answer  most  decidedly  in  the  affirmative,  and  for  reasons  set  forth 
in  my  reported  remarks  at  Ottawa  last  Monday. 

To  your  fifth  interrogatory  I  also  reply  in  the  affirmative  most  cordially,  and  that  I  will  use  roy 
utmost  exertions  to  secure  the  nomination  and  election  of  a  man  who  will  accomplish  the  objects 
of  said  interrogatories.  I  most  cordially  approve  of  the  resolutions  adopted  at  the  union  meeting 
held  at  Princeton  on  the  27th  September  ult.  Yours,  etc., 

K.  S.  MOLONY. 

All  I  have  to  say  in  regard  to  Dr.  Molony  is,  that  he  was  the  regularly  nominated 
Democratic  candidate  for  Congress  in  his  district — was  elected  at  that  time,  at  the 
end  of  his  term  was  appointed  to  a  land-office  at  Danville.  (I  never  heard  any  thing 
of  Judge  Douglas's  instrumentality  in  this.)  He  held  this  office  a  considerable  time, 
and  when  we  were  at  Freeport  the  other  day,  there  were  handbills  scattered  about 
notifying  the  public  that  after  our  debate  was  over,  R.  S.  Molony  would  make  a 
Democratic  speech  in  favor  of  Judge  Douglas.  That  is  all  I  know  of  my  own  per- 
sonal knowledge.  It  is  added  here  to  this  resolution,  arid  truly  I  believe,  that — 

"Among  those  who  participated  in  the  Joliet  Convention,  and  who  supported  its 
nominee,  with  his  platform  as  laid  down  in  the  resolution  of  the  Convention  and  in 
his  reply  as  above  given,  we  call  at  random  the  following  names,  all  of  which  are 
recognized  at  this  day  as  leading  Democrats :" 

"Cook  County — E.  B.  Williams,  Charles  McDonel],  Arno  Voss,  Thomas  Hoyne, 
Isaac  Cook." 

I  reckon  we  ought  to  except  Cook. 

"F.  C.  Sherman." 

"Will— Joel  A,  Matteson,  S.  W.  Bowen." 

«  Kane— B.  F.  Hall,  G.  W.  Renwick,  A.  M.  Herrington,  Elijah  Wilcox." 

"Melienry— W.  M.  Jackson,  Enos  W.  Smith.  Neil  Donnelly." 

"La  Salle— John  Hise,  William  Reddick." 

William  Reddick!  another  one  of  Judge  Douglas's  friends  that  stood  on  the  stand 
with  him  at  Ottawa,  at  the  time  the  Judge  says  my  knees  trembled  so  that  I  had  to 
!l>e  carried  away.  The  names  are  all  here : 

';Du Page— Nathan  Allen." 

"DeKalb— Z.  B.  Mayo." 

Here  is  another  set  of  resolutions  which  I  think  are  apposite  to  the  matter  in 
hp.nd. 

On  the  28th  of  February  of  the  same  year,  a  Democratic  District  Convention 
ft'as  held  at  Naperville,  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  Circuit  Judge.  Among  the  del- 
egates were  Bowcn  and  Kelly,  of  Will ;  Captain  Naper,  H.  H.  Cody,  Nathan  Allen, 


125 

of  DuPage ;  W.  M.  Jackson,  J.  M.  Strode,  P.  W.  Platt  and  Enos  W.  Smith,  of 
McHenry ;  J.  Horsman  and  others,  of  Winnebago.  Col.  Strode  presided  over  the 
Convention.  The  following  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted — the  first  OB 
motion  of  P.  W.  Platt,  the  second  on  motion  of  William  M.  Jackson : 

Resolved,  That  this  Convention  is  in  favor  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  both  in  Principle  and  Practice, 
aud  that  we  know  of  up  good  reafion  why  any  person  should  oppose  the  largest  latitude  in  }*ree 
&jil,  Free  Territory  and  Free  Speech. 

Rtxolred,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Convention,  the  time  has  arrived  when  all  men  should  befrer, 
whites  us  well  as  others. 

Judge  Douglas — "  What  is  the  date  of  those  resolutions?* 

Mr.  Lincoln — I  undei«stand  it  was  in  1850,  but  I  do  not  know  it  I  do  not  state  a 
thing  and  say  I  know  it,  when  I  do  not.  But  I  have  the  highest  belief  that  this  is 
BO.  I  know  of  no  way  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  there  is  an  error  in  it.  I 
mean  to  put  a  case  no  stronger  than  the  truth  will  allow.  But  what  I  was  going 
to  comment  upon  is  an  extract  from  a  newspaper  in  DeKalb  county,  and  it  strikes 
me  as  being  rather  singular,  I  confess,  under  the  circumstances.  There  is  a  Judge 
Mayo  in  that  county,  who  is  a  candidate  ibr  the  Legislature,  for  the  purpose,  if  he 
secures  his  election,  of  helping  to  re-elect  Judge  Douglas.  He  is  the  editor  of  a 
newspaper  £  DeKalb  'County  Sentinel^,  and  in  that  paper  I  find  the  extract  I  am 
going  to  read.  It  is  part  of  an  editorial  article  in  which  he  was  electioneering  as 
fiercely  as  he  could  for  Judge  Douglas  and  against  me.  It  was  a  curious  thing,  I 
think,  to  be  in  such  a  paper.  I  will  agree  to  that,  and  the  Judge  may  make  the 
most  of  it : 

"  Our  education  has  been  such,  that  we  have  ever  been  rather  in  favor  of  the 
equality  of  the  blacks  ;  that  is,  that  tliey  should  enjoy  jj.ll  the  privileges  of  the  whites 
where  they  reside.  We  are  aware  that  this  is  not  a  very  popular  doctrine.  We 
have  had  many  a  confab  with  some  who  are  now  strong  '  Republicans,'  we  taking  the 
broad  ground  of  equality  and  they  the  opposite  ground. 

44  We  were  brought  up  in  a  State  where  blacks  were  voters,  and  we  do  not  know 
of  any  inconvenience  resulting  from  it,  though  perhaps  it  would  not  work  as  well 
where  the  blacks  are  more  numerous.  Wre  have  no  doubt  of  the  right  of  the  whites 
to  guard  against  such  an  evil,  if  it  is  one.  Our  opinion  is  that  it  would  be  best  for 
all  concerned  to  have  the  colored  population  in  a  State  by  themselves  [in  this  I 
agree  with  him]  ;  but  if  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  we  say  by  ail 
means  they  should  have  the  right  to  have  their  Senators  and  Representatives  in 
Congress,  and  to  vote  for  President.  With  us  '  worth  makes  the  man,  and  want 
of  it  the  fellow.'  We  have  seen  many  a  *  nigger '  that  we  thought  more  of  than 
some  white  men." 

That  is  one  of  Judge  Douglas's  friends.  Now  I  do  not  want  to  leave  myself  in 
an  attitude  where  I  can  be  misrepresented,  so  I  will  say  I  do  not  think  the  Judge  is 
responsible  for  this  article ;  but  he  is  quite  as  responsible  for  it  as  1  would  be  if  one 
of  my  friends  had  said  it.  I  think  that  is  fair  enough. 

I  have  here  also  a  set  of  resolutions  passed  by  a  Democratic  State  Convention  in 
Judge  Douglas's  own  good  old  State  of  Vermont,  that  I  think  ought  to  be  good  for 
him  too : 

Resolved,  That  liberty  is  a  right  inherent  aod  inalienable  in  man,  and  that  herein  all  men  are 
equal. 

Resolved,  That  we  claim  no  authority  in  the  Federal  Government  to  abolish  slavery  in  the 
several  States,  but  we  do  claim  for  it  Constitutional  power  perpetually  to  prohibit  the  introduc- 
tion of  slavery  into  territory  now  free,  and  abolish  it  wherever,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress, 
it  exists. 

Resolved,  That  this  power  ought  immediately  to  be  exercised  in  prohibiting  the  introduction 
and  existence  of  slavery  in  New  Mexico  and  California,  in  abolishing  slavery  and  the  slave* 
trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  on  the  high  seas,  and  wherever  else,  under  the  Constitution, 
it  can  be  reached. 

Resolvtd,  That  no  more  slave  States  should  be  admitted  into  the  Federal  Union. 

Resolved,  That  the  Government  ouTht  to  return  to  its  ancient,  policy,  not  to  extend,  nation 
or  encourage,  but  Lo  limit,  localize  and  discourage  slavery. 
9 


126 

At  Freeport  T  answered  several  interrogatories  that  had  been  propounded  to  me 
by  Judge  Douglas  at  the  Ottawa  meeting.  The  Judge  has  yet  not  seen  fit  to  find 
any  fault  with  the  position  that  I  took  in  regard  to  those  seven  interrogatories,  which 
were  certainly  broad  enough,  in  all  conscience,  to  cover  the  entire  ground.  In  my 
answers,  which  have  been  printed,  and  all  have  had  the  opportunity  of  seeing,  I  take 
the  ground  that  those  who  elect  me  must  expect  that  I  will  dq  nothing  which  will  not 
be  in  accordance  with  those  answers*  I  have  some  right  to  assert  that  Judge  Doug- 
las has  no  fault  to  find  with  them.  But  he  chooses  to  still  try  to  thrust  me  upon 
different  ground  without  paying  any  attention  to  my  answers,  the  obtaining  of  which 
from  me  cost  him  so  much  trouble  and  concern.  At  the  same  time,  I  propounded 
four  interrogatories  to  him,  claiming  it  as  a  right  that  he*  should  answer  as  many 
interrogatories  for  me  as  I  did  for  him,  and  I  would  reserve  myself  for  a  future  in- 
stallment when  I  got  them  ready.  The  Judge  in  answering  me  upon  that  occasion, 
put  in  what  I  suppose  he  intends  as  answers  to  all  four  of  my  interrogatories.  Tin; 
first  one  of  these  interrogatories  I  have  before  me,  and  it  is  in  these  words : 

"Question  1.  If  the  people  of  Kansas  shall,  by  means  entirely  unobjectionable  in 
all  other  respects,  adopt  a  State  Constitution,  and  ask  admission  into  the  Union  un- 
der it,  before  they  have  the  requisite  number  of  inhabitants  according  to  the  English 
bill — some  ninety -three  thousand — will  you  vote  to  admit  them?" 

As  I  read  the  Judge's  answer  in  the  newspaper,  and  as  I  remember  it  as  pro- 
nounced at  the  time,  he  does  not  give  any  answer  which  is  equivalent  to  yes  or  no 
— I  will  or  I  wont.  He  answers  at  very  considerable  length,  rather  quarreling  with 
me  for  asking  the  question,  and  insisting  that  Judge  Trumbull  had  done  something 
that  I  ought  to  say  something  about;  and  finally  getting  out  such  statements  as  in- 
duce me  to  infer  that  he  means  to  be  understood  he  will,  in  that  supposed  case,  vote 
for  the  admission  of  Kansas.  I  only  bring  this  forward  now  for  the  purpose  of  say- 
ing that  if  he  chooses  to  put  a  different  construction  upon  his  answer  he  may  do 
it.  But  if  he  does  not,  I  shall  from  this  time  forward  assume  that  he  will  vote 
for  the  admission  of  Kansas  in  disregard  of  the  English  bill.  He  has  the  right  to 
remove  any  misunderstanding  I  may  have.  I  only  mention  it  now  that  I  may  here- 
after assume  this  to  be  the  true  construction  of  his  answer,  if  he  does  not  now 
ehoose  to  correct  me. 

The  second  interrogatory  that  I  propounded  to  him,  was  this : 

"  Question  2.  Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Territory,  in  any  lawful  way, 
against  the  wish  of  any  citizer  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits 
prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  Constitution  ? " 

To  this  Judge  Douglas  answered  that  they  can  lawfully  exclude  slavery  from  the 
Territory  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  Constitution.  He  goes  on  to  tell  us  how  it 
can  be  done.  As  I  understand  him,  he  holds  that  it  can  be  done  by  the  Territorial 
Legislature  refusing  to  make  any  enactments  for  the  protection  of  slavery  in  the 
Territory,  and  especially  by  adopting  unfriendly  legislation  to  it.  For  the  sake  of 
clearness  I  state  it  again ;  that  they  can  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territory,  1st, 
by  withholding  what  he  assumes  to  be  an  indispensable  assistance  to  it  in  the 
way  of  legislation ;  and,  2d,  by  unfriendly  legislation.  If  I  rightly  understand  him, 
I  wish  to  ask  your  attention  for  a  while  to  his  position. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  decided  that  any 
Congressional  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  is  unconstitutional — that  they 
have  reached  this  proposition  as  a  conclusion  from  their  former  proposition,  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  expressly  recognizes  property  in  slaves,  and  from 
that  other  Constitutional  provision,  that  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  property 
without  due  process  of  law.  Hence  they  reach  the  conclusion  that  as  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  expressly  recognizes  property  in  slaves,  and  prohibits  any 
person  from  being  deprived  of  property  without  due  process  of  law,  to  pass  an  act 
of  Congress  by  which  a  man  who  owned  a  slave  on  one  side  of  a  line  would  be  de- 
prived of  him  if  he  took  him  on  the  other  side,  is  depriving  him  of  that  property 
without  due  process  of  law.  That  I  understand  to  be  the  decision  of  the  Su- 


127 

preme  Court.  I  understand  also  that  Judge  Douglas  adheres  most  firmly  to  that 
decision ;  and  the  difficulty  is,  how  is  it  possible  for  any  power  to  exclude  slavery 
from  the  Territory  unless  in  violation  of  that  decision  ?  That  is  the  difficulty. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  1850,  Judge  Trumbull,  in  a  speech,  sub- 
stantially, if  not  directly,  put  the  same  interrogatory  to  Judge  Douglas,  as  to  whether 
the  people  of  a  Territory  had  the  lawful  power  to  exclude  slavery  prior  to  the  for- 
mation of  a  Constitution  ?  Judge  Douglas  then  answered  at  considerable  length, 
and  his  answer  will  be  found  in  the  Congressional  Globe,  under  date  of  June  9th, 
1856.  The  Judge  said  that  whether  the  people  could  exclude  slavery  prior" to 
the  formation  of  a  Constitution  or  not  was  a  question  to  be  decided  by  the  Supreme 
Court.  He  put  that  proposition,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  Congressional  Globe,  in  a 
variety  of  forms,  all  running  to  the  same  thing  in  substance — that  it  was  a  question 
for  the  Supreme  Court.  I  maintain  that  when  he  says,  after  the  Supreme  Court 
have  decided  the  question,  that  the  people  may  yet  exclude  slavery  by  any  means 
whatever,  he  does  virtually  say,  that  it  is  not  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court. 
He  shifts  his  ground.  I  appeal  to  you  whether  he  did  not  say  it  was  a  question  for 
the  Supreme  Court  ?  Has  not  the  Supreme  Court  decided  that  question  ?  When 
he  now  says  the  people  may  exclude  slavery,  does  he  not  make  it  a  question  for  the 
people  ?  Does  he  not  virtually  shift  his  ground  arid  say  that  it  is  not  a  question  for 
the  court,  but  for  the  people  ?  This  is  a  very  simple  proposition — a  very  plain  and 
naked  one.  It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  deciding  it.  In  a  variety 
of  ways  he  said  that  it  was  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court.  He  did  not  stop 
then  to  tell  us  that  whatever  the  Supreme  Court  decides,  the  people  can  by  with- 
holding necessary  "  police  regulations "  keep  slavery  out.  He  did  not  make  any 
such  answer.  I  submit  to  you  now,  whether  the  new  state  of  the  case  has  not  'in- 
duced the  Judge  to  sheer  away  from  his  original  ground.  Would  not  this  be  the  im- 
pression of  every  fair-minded  man  ? 

I  hold  that  the  proposition  that  slavery  cannot  enter  a  new  country  without  police 
regulations  is  historically  false.  It  is  not  true  at  all.  I  hold  that  the  history  of  this 
country  shows  that  the  institution  of  slavery  was  originally  planted  upon  this 'conti- 
nent without  these  "police  regulations  "  which  the  Judge  now  thinks  necessary  for  the 
actual  establishment  of  it.  Not  only  so,  but  is  there  not  another  fact — how  came  this 
Dred  Scott  decision  to  be  made  ?  It  was  made  upon  the  case  of  a  negro  being 
taken  and  actually  held  in  slavery  in  Minnesota  Territory,  claiming  his  freedom  be- 
cause the  act  of  Congress  prohibited  his  being  so  held  there.  Will  the  Judge  pre- 
tend that  Dred  Scott  was  not  held  there  without  police  regulations  ?  There  is  at 
least  one  matter  of  record  as  to  his  having  been  held  in  slavery  in  the  Territory, 
not  only  without  police  regulations,  but  in  the  teeth  of  Congressional  legislation  sup- 
posed to  be  valid  at  the  time.  This  shows  that  there  is  vigor  enough  in  slavery  to 
plant  itself  in  a  new  country  even  against  unfriendly  legislation.  It  takes  not  only 
law  but  the  enforcement  of  law  to  keep  it  out.  That  is  the  history  of  this  country 
upon  the  subject. 

I  wish  to  ask  one  other  question.  It  being  understood  that  the  Constitution"  of 
the  United  States  guaranties  property  in  slaves  in  the  Territories,  if  there  is  any  in- 
fringement of  the  right  of  that  property,  would  not  the  United  States  Courts,  organ- 
ized for  the  government  of  the  Territory,  apply  such  remedy  as  might  bo  necessary 
in  that  case?  It  is  a  maxim  held  by  the  courts,  that  there  is  no  \vrong  without  its 
remedy ;  and  the  courts  have  a  remedy  for  whatever  is  acknowledged  and  treated 
as  a  wrong. 

Again :  I  will  ask  you,  my  friends,  if  you  were  elected  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, what  would  be  the  first  thing  you  would  have  to  do  before  entering  upon  your 
duties  ?  Swear  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Suppose  you 
believe,  as  Judge  Douglas  does,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  guaran- 
ties to  your  neighbor  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  that  Territory — that  they  are  his 
property — how  can  you  clear  your  oaths  unless  you  give  him  such  legislation  as  is 
necessary  to  enable  him  to  enjoy  that  property  ?  What  do  you  understand  by  sup 


128 

porting  the  Constitution  of  a  State,  or  of  the  United  States?  Is  it  not  to  give  snci 
Constitutional  helps  to  the  rights  established  by  that  Constitution  as  may  be  practi- 
cally needed  ?  Can  you,  if  you  swear  to  support  the  Constitution,  and  believe  that 
fche  Constitution  establishes  a  right,  clear  your  oath,  without  giving  it  support?  Do 
you  support  the  Constitution  if,  knowing  or  believing  there  is  a  right  established 
tinder  it  which  needs  specific  legislation,  you  withhold  that  legislation  ?  Do  you  not 
violate  and  disregard  your  oath  ?  I  can  conceive  of  nothing  plainer  in  the  world. 
There  can  be  nothing  in  the  words  "  support  the  Constitution,"  if  you  may  rui 
.counter  to  it  by  refusing  support  to  any  right  established  under  the  Constitution 
And  what  I  say  here  will  hold  with  still  more  force  against  the  Judge's  doctrine  oi 
'*  unfriendly  legislation."  How  could  you,  having  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution 
and  believing  it  guarantied  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  the  Territories,  assist  in  legis- 
lation intended  to  defeat  that  right  ?  That  would  be  violating  your  own  view  of  the 
Constitution.  Not  only  so,  but  if  you  were  to  do  so,  how  long  would  it  take  th& 
courts  to  hold  your  votes  unconstitutional  and  void  ?  Not  a  moment. 

Lastly  I  would  ask — is  not  Congress,  itself,  under  obligation  to  give  legislative 
support  to  any  right  that  is  established  under  the  United  States  Constitution  ?  I  re- 
peat the  question — is  not  Congress,  itself,  bound  to  give  legislative  support  to  an} 
right  that  is  established  in  the  United  States  Constitution  ?  A  member  of  Congress 
swears  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  if  he  sees  a  right  estab- 
lished by  that  Constitution  which  needs  specific  legislative  protection,  can  he  clear  hw 
oath  without  giving  that  protection  ?  Let  me  ask  you  why  many  of  us  who  are  op- 
posed to  slavery  upon  principle,  give  our  acquiescence  to  a  Fugitive  Slave  law  ? 
Why  do  we  hold  ourselves  under  obligations  to  pass  such  a  law,  and  abide-  by  it  when 
it  is  passed  ?  Because  the  Constitution  makes  provision  that  the  owners  of  slaves 
shall  have  the  right  to  reclaim  them.  It  gives  the  right  to  reclaim  slaves,  and  that 
right  is,  as  Judge  Douglas  says,  a  barren  right,  unless  there  is  legislation  that  will 
enforce  it 

The  mere  declaration,  "  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State  under  the 
laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation 
(herein  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim 
of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due,"  is  powerless  without  specific 
legislation  to  enforce  it.  Now,  on  what  ground  would  a  member  of  Congress  who  is 
opposed  to  slavery  in  the  abstract,  vote  for  a  Fugitive  law,  as.  I  would  deem  it  my 
duty  to  do  ?  Because  there  is  a  Constitutional  right  which  needs  legislation  to  en- 
force it  And  although  it  is  distasteful  to  me,  I  have  sworn  to  support  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  having  so  sworn,  I  cannot  conceive  that  I  do  support  it  if  I  withhold  from 
that  right  any  necessary  legislation  to  make  it  practical.  And  if  that  is  true  in  regard 
to  a  Fugitive  Slave  law,  is  the  right  to  have  fugitive  slaves  reclaimed  any  better  fix^i 
in  the  Constitution  than  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  the  Territories  ?  For  this  de- 
cision is  a  just  exposition  of  the  Constitution,  as  Judge  Douglas  thinks.  Is  the  one 
ri^ht  any  better  than  the  other  ?  Is  ttiere  any  man  who,  while  a  member  of  Con- 
gress, would  give  support  to  the  one  any  more  than  the  other  ?  If  I  wished  to  re- 
fuse to  give  legislative  support  to  slave  property  in  the  Territories,  if  a  member  of 
Congress,  I  could  not  do  it,  holding  the  view  that  the  Constitution  establishes  that 
right  If  I  did  it  at  all,  it  would  be  because  I  deny  that  this  decision  properly  con- 
strues the  Constitution.  But  if  I  acknowledge,  with  Judge  Douglas,  that  this  decision 
properly  construes  the  Constitution,  I  cannot  conceive  that  I  would  be  less  than  a 
perjured  man  if  I  should  refuse  in  Congress  to  give  such  protection  to  that  property 
as  in  its  nature  it  needed. 

At  the  end  of  what  I  have  said  here*  I  propose  to  give  the  Judge  my  fifth  inter- 
rogatory, which  he  may  take  and  answer  at  his  leisure.  My  fifth  interrogatory  is 
tins : 

If  the  slaveholding  citizens  of  a  United  States  Territory  should  need  and  demand 
Congressional  legislation  for  the  protection  of  their  slave  property  in  such  Territory, 
would  you,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  vote  for  or  against  such  legislation  ? 


129 

Judge  Douglas — "  Will  you  repeat  that  ?     1  want  to  answer  that  question." 

Mr.  Lincoln — If  the  slaveholding  citizens  of  a  United  States  Territory  should  need 
and  demand  Congressional  legislation  for  the  protection  of  their  slave  property  in 
such  Territory,  would  you,  as  a  member  of  Cougrevss,  vote  for  or  against  such  legis- 
lation ? 

I  am  aware  that  in  some  of  the  speeches  Judge  Douglas  has  made,  he  has  spoken 
as  if  he  did  not  know  or  think  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  decided  that  a  Territorial 
Legislature  cannot  exclude  slavery.  Precisely  what  the  Judge  would  say  upon  the 
subject — whether  he  would  say  definitely  that  he  does  not  understand  they  have  50 
decided,  or  whether  he  would  say  he  does  understand  that  the  court  have  so  decided, 
I  do  not  know ;  but  I  know  that  in  his  speech  at  Springfield  he  spoke  of  it  as  a  thing 
they  had  not  decided  yet ;  and  in  his  answer  to  me  at  Freeport,  he  spoke  of  it  so  far 
again,  as  I  can  comprehend  it,  as  a  thing  that  had  not  yet  been  decided.  Now  ) 
hold  that  if  the  Judge  does  entertain  that  view,  I  think  that  he  is  not  mistaken  in  so 
far  as  it  can  be  said  that  the  court  has  not  decided  any  thing  save  the  mere  question 
of  jurisdiction.  I  know  the  legal  arguments  that  can  be  made — that  after  a  court 
has  decided  that  it  cannot  take  jurisdiction  in  a  case,  it  then  has  decided  all  that  is 
before  it,  and  that  is  the  end  of  it.  A  plausible  argument  can  be  made  in  favor  of 
that  proposition,  but  I  know  that  Judge  Douglas  has  said  in  one  of  his  speeches  that 
the  court  went  forward,  like  honest  men  as  they  were,  and  decided  all  the  points  in 
the  case.  If  any  points  are  really  extra-judicially  decided  because  not  necessarily 
before  them,  then  this  one  as  to  the  power  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  exclude 
slavery  is  one  of  them,  as  also  the  one  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  null  arxi 
void.  They  are  both  extra-judicial,  or  neither  is,  according  as  the  court  held  that 
they  had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case  between  the  parties,  because  of  want  of  capacity 
of  one  party  to  maintain  a  suit  in  that  court.  1  want,  if  I  have  sufficient  time,  to 
show  that  the  court  did  pass  its  opinion,  but  that  is  the  only  thing  actually  done  in 
the  case.  If  they  did  not  decide,  they  showed  what  they  were  ready  to  decide  when- 
ever the  matter  was  before  them.  What  is  that  opinion  ?  After  having  argued  that 
Congress  had  no  power  to  pass  a  law  excluding  slavery  from  a  United  States  Terri- 
tory, they  then  used  language  to  this  effect :  That  inasmuch  as  Congress  itself  could 
not  exercise  such  a  power,  it  followed  as  a  matter  of  course  that  it  could  not  authorize 
a  Territorial  Government  to  exercise  it,  for  the  Territorial  Legislature  can  do  no 
more  than  Congress  could  do.  Thus  it  expressed  its  opinion  emphatically  against  the 
power  of  a  Territorial  Legislature  to  exclude  slavery,  leaving  us  in  just  as  little 
doubt  on  that  point  as  upon  any  other  point  they  really  decided. 

Now,  my  fellow-citizens,  I  will  detain  you  only  a  little  while  longer.  My  time  is 
nearly  out.  I  find  a  report  of  a  speech  made  by  Judge  Douglas  at  Joliet,  since  we 
last  met  at  Freeport — published,  I  believe,  in  the  Missouri  Republican — on  the  9th 
of  this  month,  in  which  Judge  Douglas  says  • 

"  You  know  at  Ottawa,  I  read  this  platform,  and  asked  him  if  he  concurred  in  each 
arid  all  of  the  principles  set  forth  in  it.  He  would  not  answer  these  questions.  At 
last  I  said  frankly,  I  wish  you  to  answer  them,  because  when  I  get  them  up  here 
where  the  color  of  your  principles  are  a  little  darker  than  in  Egypt,  I  intend  to  trol 
you  down  to  Jonesboro.  The  very  notice  that  I  was  going  to  take  him  down  to 
Egypt  made  him  tremble  in  the  knees  so  that  he  had  to  be  carried  from  the  platform. 
He  laid  up  seven  days,  and  in  the  meantime  held  a  consultation  with  his  political  phy- 
sicians ;  they  had  Lovejoy  and  Farnsworth  and  all  the  leaders  of  the  Abolition  partj, 
they  consulted  it  all  over,  and  at  last  Lincoln  came  to  the  conclusion  that  he  would 
answer,  so  he  came  up  to  Freeport  last  Friday." 

Now  that  statement  altogether  furnishes  a  subject  for  philosophical  contemplation. 
I  have  been  treating  it  in  that  way,  and  I  have  really  come  to  the  conclusion  that  I 
can  explain  it  in  no  other  way  than  by  believing  the  Judge  is  crazy.  If  he  was  in 
his  right  mind,  I  cannot  conceive  how  he  would  have  risked  disgusting  the  four  or 
five  thousand  of  his  own  friends  who  stood  there,  and  knew,  as  to  my  having  beeo 
carried  from  the  platform,  that  there  was  not  a  word  of  truth  in  it. 


130 

Judge  Douglas — "  Didn't  they  carry  you  off?  " 

Mr.  Lincoln — There ;  that  question  illustrates  the  character  of  this  man  Douglas, 
exactly.  He  smiles  now  and  says,  "  Didn't  they  carry  you  off?"  But  he  said  then, 
"  he  had  to  be  carried  off;"  and  he  said  it  to  convince  the  country  that  he  had  so 
completely  broken  me  down  by  his  speech  that  I  had  to  be  carried  away.  Now  he 
seeks  to  dodge  it,  and  asks,  "  Didn't  they  carry  you  off?"  Yes,  they  did.  But, 
Judge  Douglas,  why  didn't  you  tell  the  truth?"  I  would  like  to  know  why  you  iidn't 
tell  the  truth  about  it.  And  then  again,  "  He  laid  up  seven  days."  He  puts  this  in 
print  for  the  people  of  the  country  to  read  as  a  serious  document,  I  think  if  he  had 
been  in  his  sober  senses  he  would  not  have  risked  that  barefacedness  in  the  presence 
of  thousands  of  his  own  friends,  who  knew  that  I  made  speeches  within  six  of  the 
,seven  days  at  Henry.  Marshall  county ;  Augusta,  Hancock  county,  and  Macomb, 
McDonough  county,  including  all  the  necessary  travel  to  meet  him  again  at  Freeport 
at  the  end  of  the  six  days.  Now,  I  say,  there  is  no  charitable  way  to  look  at  that 
statement,  except  to  conclude  that  he  is  actually  crazy.  There  is  another  thing  in 
that  statement  that  alarmed  me  very  greatly  as  he  states  it,  that  he  was  going  to 
u  trot  me  down  to  Egypt."  Thereby  he  would  have  you  to  infer  that  I  would  not 
come  to  Egypt  unless  he  forced  me — that  I  could  not  be  got  here,  unless  he,  giant- 
like, had  hauled  me  down  here.  That  statement  he  makes,  too,  in  the  teeth  of  the 
knowledge  that  I  had  made  the  stipulation  to  come  down  here,  and  that  he  himself 
had  been  very  reluctant  to  enter  into  the  stipulation.  More  than  all  this,  Judge  Doug- 
las, when  he  made  that  statement,  must  have  been  crazy,  and  wholly  out  of  his  sober 
senses,  or  else  he  would  have  known  that  when  he  got  me  down  here — that  promise 
— that  windy  promise — of  his  powers  to  annihilate  me,  wouldn't  amount  to  anything. 
Now,  how  little  do  I  look  like  being  carried  away  trembling  ?  Let  the  Judge  go  on, 
.and  after  he  is  done  with  his  half  hour,  I  want  you  all,  if  1  can't  go  home  myself,  to 
let  me  stay  and  rot  here ;  and  if  anything  happens  to  the  Judge,  if  I  cannot  carry 
him  to  the  hotel  and  put  him  to  bed,  let  me  stay  here  and  rot.  I  say,  then,  there  is 
something  extraordinary  in  this  statement.  I  ask  you  if  you  know  any  other  living 
man  who  would  make  such  a  statement  ?  I  will  ask  my  friend  Casey,  over  there,  if 
he  would  do  such  a  a  thing?  Would  he  send  that  out  and  have  his  men  take  it  as 
the  truth?  Did  the  Judge  talk  of  trotting  me  down  to  Egypt  to  scare  me  to  death  ? 
Why,  I  know  this  people  better  than  he  does.  I  was  raised  just  a  little  east  of  here. 
I  am  a  part  of  this  people.  But  the  Judge  was  raised  further  north,  and  perhaps  he 
has  some  horrid  idea  of  what  this  people  might  be  induced  to  do.  But  really  I  have 
talked  about  this  matter  perhaps  longer  than  I  ought,  for  it  is  no  great  thing,  a*iJ  yet 
the  smallest  are  often  the  most  difficult  things  to  deal  with.  The  Judge  has  set  about 
seriously  trying  to  make  the  impression  that  when  we  meet  at  different  places  I  am 
literally  in  his  clutches — that  I  am  a  poor,  helpless,  decrepit  mouse,  and  that  I  can 
do  nothing  at  all.  This  is  one  of  the  ways  he  has  taken  to  create  that  impression. 
I  don't  know  any  other  way  to  meet  it,  except  this.  I  don't  want  to  quarrel  with  him 
— to  call  him  a  liar — but  when  I  come  square  up  to  him  I  don't  know  what  else  to 
sail  him,  if  1  must  tell  the  truth  out.  I  want  to  be  at  peace,  and  reserve  all  my 
fighting  powers  for  necessary  occasions.  My  time,  now,  is  very  nearly  out,  and  I 
give  up  the  trifle  that  is  left  to  the  Judge,  to  let  him  set  my  knees  trembling  again, 
if  he  can. 


MR.  DOUGLAS'S  REPLY. 

My  friends,  while  I  am  very  grateful  to  you  for  the  enthusiasm  which  you  show 
for  me,  I  will  say  in  all  candor,  that  your  quietness  will  be  much  more  agreeable 
than  your  applause,  inasmuch  as  you  deprive  me  of  some  part  of  my  time  whenever 
you  cheer. 

I  will  commence  where  Mr.  Lincoln  left  off,  and  make  a  remark  upon  this  serious 


131 

complaint  of  his  about  my  speech  at  Joliet.  I  did  say  there  in  a  playful  manner 
that  when  I  put  these  questions  to  Mr.  Lincoln  at  Ottowa  he  failed  to  answer,  and 
that  he  trembled  and  had  to  be  carried  off  the  stand,  and  required  seven  days  to 
set  up  his  reply.  That  he  did  not  walk  off  from  that  stand  he  will  not  deny. 
That  when  the  crowd  went  away  from  the  stand  with  me,  a  few  persons  carried  him 
home  on  their  shoulders  and  laid  him  down,  he  will  admit.  I  wish  to  say  to  you 
that  whenever  I  degrade  my  friends  and  myself  by  allowing  them  to  carry  me  on 
their  backs  along  through  the  public  streets,  when  I  am  able  to  walk,  I  am  willing  to 
be  deemed  crazy.  I  did  not  say  whether  I  beat  him  or  he  beat  me  in  the  argu- 
ment. It  is  true  I  put  these  questions  to  him,  and  I  put  them  not  as  mere  idle  ques- 
tions, but  showed  that  I  based  them  upon  the  creed  of  the  Black  Republican 
party  as  declared  by  their  Conventions  in  that  portion  of  the  State  which  he  de- 
pends upon  to  elect  him,  and  desired  to  know  whether  he  indorsed  that  creed.  He 
would  not  answer.  When  I  reminded  him  that  I  intended  bringing  him  into  Kgypt 
and  renewing  my  questions  if  he  refused  to  answer,  he  then  consulted  and  did  get 
up  his  answers  one  week  after, — answers  which  I  may  refer  to  in  a  few  minutes  and 
show  you  how  equivocal  they  are.  My  object  was  to  make  him  avow  whether  or 
not  he  stood  by  the  platform  of  his  party ;  the  resolutions  I  then  read,  and  upon 
which  I  based  my  questions,  had  been  adopted  by  his  party  in  the  Galena  Congres- 
sional District,  and  the  Chicago  and  Bloomington  Congressional  Districts,  composing 
a  large  majority  of  the  counties  in  this  State  that  give  Republican  or  Abolition  ma- 
jorities. Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  and  will  not  deny  that  the  doctrines  laid  down  in  these 
resolutions  were  in  substance  put  forth  in  Lovejoy's  resolutions,  which  were  voted 
for  by  a  majority  of  his  party,  some  of  them,  if  not  all,  receiving  the  support  of  ev- 
ery man  of  his  party.  Hence,  I  laid  a  foundation  for  my  questions  to  him  before 
I  asked  him  whether  that  was  or  was  not  the  platform  of  his  party.  He  says 
that  he  answered  niy  questions.  One  of  them  was  whether  he  would  vote  to 
admit  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union.  The  creed  of  the  Republican  party 
as  set  forth  in  the  resolutions  of  their  various  Conventions  was,  that  they  would 
under  no  circumstances  vote  to  admit  another  slave  State.  It  was  put  forth  in  the 
Lovejoy  resolutions  in  the  Legislature ;  it  was  put  forth  and  passed  in  a  majority  of 
all  the  counties  of  this  State  which  give  Abolition  or  Republican  majorities,  or  elect 
members  to  the  Legislature  of  that  school  of  politics.  I  had  a  right  to  know 
whtulu-r  he  would  vote  for  or  against  the  admission  of  another  slave  State  in  the 
event  the  people  wanted  it.  lie  tirst  answered  that  he  was  not  pledged  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  then  said,  "In  regard  to  the  other  question,  of  whether  I  am  pledged  to 
die  admission  of  any  more  slave  States  into  the  Union,  I  state  fo  you  very  franldj 
that  I  would  be  exceedingly  sorry  ever  to  be  put  in  the  position  of  having  to  pass 
on  that  question.  I  should  be  exceedingly  glad  to  know  that  there  would  never 
be  another  slave  State  admitted  into  the  Union ;  but  I  must  add  that  if  slavery  shall 
b<3  kept  out  of  the  Territories  during  the  territorial  existence  of  any  one  given  Ter- 
ritory, and  then  the  people,  having  a  fair  chance  and  clean  field  when  they  come  to 
adopt  a  Constitution,  do  such  an  extraordinary  thing  as  adopt  a  slave  Constitution, 
uninfluenced  by  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alterna- 
tive, if  we  own  the  country,  but  to  admit  them  into  the  Union." 

Nc  w  analyze  that  answer.  In  the  first  place  he  says  he  would  be  exceedingly 
sorry  to  be  put  in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to  vote  on  the  question  of  the 
admission  of  a  slave  State.  Why  is  he  a  candidate  for  the  Senate  if  he  would  be 
sorry  to  be  put  in  that  position  ?  I  trust  the  people  of  Illinois  will  not  put  Irm  *o 
a  position  wrhich  he  wrould  be  so  sorry  to  occupy.  The  next  position  .he  takes  is 
that  he  would  be  glad  to  know  that  there  would  never  be  another  slave  State,  yet, 
in  certain  contingencies,  he  might  have  to  vote  for  one.  What  is  that  contingency  ? 
'"  If  Congress  keeps  slavery  out  by  law  while  it  is  a  Territory,  and  then  the  people 
should  have  a  fair  chance  and  should  adopt  slavery,  uninfluenced  by  the  presence  of 
the  institution,"  he  supposed  he  would  have  to  admit  the  State.  Suppose  Congress 
should  not  keep  slaveiy  out  during  their  territorial  existence,  then  how  would  he 


132 

vote  when  the  people  applied  for  admission  into  the  Union  with  a  slave  Constitution? 
That  he  does  not  answer,  and  that  is  the  condition  of  every  Territory  we  have  now 
got  Slavery  is  not  kept  out  of  Kansas  by  act  of  Congress,  and  when  I  put  the 
question  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  whether  he  will  vote  for  the  admission  with  or  without  sla- 
very, as  her  people  may  desire,  he  will  not  answer,  and  you  have  not  got  an  answer 
from  him.  In  Nebraska  slavery  is  not  prohibited  by  act  of  Congress,  but  the  peo- 
ple are  allowed,  under  the  Nebraska  bill,  to  do  as  they  please  on  the  subject ;  and 
when  I  ask  him  whether  he  will  vote  to  admit  Nebraska  with  a  slave  Constitution 
if  her  people  desire  it,  he  will  not  answer.  So  with  New  Mexico,  Washington  Ter- 
ritory, Arizonia,  and  the  four  new  States  to  be  admitted  from  Texas.  You  cannot 
get  an  answer  from  him  to  these  questions.  His  answer  only  applies  to  a  given 
case,  to  a  condition — things  which  he  knows  does  not  exist  in  any  one  Territory  in 
the  Union.  He  tries  to  give  you  to  understand  that  he  would  allow  the  people  to  do 
as  they  please,  and  yet  he  dodges  the  question  as  to  every  Territory  in  the  Union. 
I  now  ask  why  cannot  Mr.  Lincoln  answer  to  each  of  these  Territories  ?  He  has 
not  done  it,  and  he  will  not  do  it.  The  Abolitionists  up  North  understand  that  this 
answer  is  made  with  a  view  of  not  committing  himself  on  any  one  Territory  now  in 
existence.  It  is  so  understood  there,  and  you  cannot  expect  an  answer  from  him 
on  a  case  that  applies  to  any  one  Territory,  or  applies  to  the  new  States  which  by 
compact  we  are  pledged  to  admit  out  of  Texas,  when  they  have  the  requisite  popu- 
lation and  desire  admission.  I  submit  to  you  whether  he  has  made  a  frank  answer, 
so  that  you  can  tell  how  he  would  vote  in  any  one  of  these  cases.  "  He  would  be 
sorry  to  be  put  in  the  position."  Why  would  he  be  sorry  to  be  put  in  this  position 
if  his  duty  required  him  to  give  the  vote  ?  If  the  people  of  a  Territory  ought  to 
be  permitted  to  come  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  with  slavery  or  without  it,  as  they 
pleased,  why  not  give  the  vote  admitting  them  cheerfully  ?  If  in  his  opinion  they 
ought  not  to  come  in  with  slavery,  even  if  they  wanted  to,  why  not  say  that  he  would 
cheerfully  vote  against  their  admission  ?  His  intimation  is  that  conscience  would  not 
let  him  vote  "  No,"  and  he  would  be  sorry  to  do  that  which  his  conscience  would 
compel  him  to  do  as  an  honest  man. 

In  regard  to  the  contract  or  bargain  between  Trumbull,  the  Abolitionists  and  him, 
which  he  denies,  I  wish  to  say  that  the  charge  can  be  proved  by  notorious  histori- 
cal facts.  Trumbull,  Lovejoy,  Giddings,  Fred  Douglass,  Hale,  and  Banks,  were 
traveling  the  State  at  that  time  making  speeches  on  the  same  side  and  in  the  same 
cause  with  him.  He  contents  himself  with  the  simple  denial  that  no  such  thing  oc- 
curred. Does  he  deny  that  he,  and  Trumbull,  and  Breese,  and  Giddings,  and  Chase, 
and  Fred  Douglass,  and  Lovejoy,  and  all  those  Abolitionists  and  deserters  from  the 
Democratic  party,  did  make  speeches  all  over  this  State  in  the  same  common  cause  ? 
Does  he  deny  that  Jim  Matheny  was  then,  and  is  now,  his  confidential  friend,  and 
does  he  deny  that  Matheny  made  the  charge  of  the  bargain  and  fraud  in  his  own 
language,  as  I  have  read  it  from  his  printed  speech.  Matheny  spoke  of  his  own  per- 
sonal knowledge  of  that  bargain  existing  between  Lincoln,  Trumbull,  and  the  Aboli- 
tionists. He  still  remains  Lincoln's  confidential  friend,  and  is  now  a  candidate  for 
Congress,  and  is  canvassing  the  Springfield  District  for  Lincoln.  I  assert  that  I 
can  prove  the  charge  to  be  true  in  detail  if  I  can  ever  get  it  where  I  can  summon 
and  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses.  I  have  the  statement  of  another  man  to 
the  same  effect  as  that  made  by  Matheny,  which  I  am  not  permitted  to  use  yet,  but 
Jin:  Matheny  is  a  good  witness  on  that  point,  and  the  history  of  the  country  is  con- 
clusive upon  it.  That  Lincoln  up  to  that  time  had  been  a  Whig,  and  then  under- 
took to  Abolitionize  the  Whigs  and  bring  them  into  the  Abolition  camp,  is  beyond 
denial ;  thai  Trumbull  up  to  that  time  had  been  a  Democrat,  and  deserted,  and  un- 
dertook to  Abolitionize  the  Democracy,  and  take  them  into  the  Abolition  camp,  is 
beyond  denial ;  that  they  are  both  now  active,  leading,  distinguished  members  of 
this  Abolition  Republican  party,  in  full  communion,  is  a  fact  that  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned or  denied. 

But  Lincoln  is  not  willing  to  be  responsible  for  the  creed  of  his  party.     He  com- 


133 

plains  because  I  hold  him  responsible,  and  in  order  to  avoid  the  issue,  he  attempts 
to  show  that  individuals  in  the  Democratic  party,  many  years  ago,  expressed  Abo- 
lition sentiments.  It  is  true  that  Tom  Campbell,  when  a  candidate  for  Congress  in 
1850,  published  the  letter  which  Lincoln  read.  When  I  asked  Lincoln  for  the 
date  of  that  letter  he  could  not  give  it.  The  date  of  the  letter  has  been  sup- 
pressed by  other  speakers  who  have  used  it,  though  I  take  it  for  granted  that 
Lincoln  did  not  know  the  date.  If  he  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine,  he  will 
find  that  the  letter  was  published  only  two  days  before  the  election,  and  was  never 
seen  until  after  it,  except  in  one  county.  Tom  Campbell  would  have  been  beat  to 
death  by  the  Democratic  party  if  that  letter  had  been  made  public  in  his  district- 
As  to  Molony,  it  is  true  he  uttered  sentiments  of  the  kind  referred  to  by  Mr.  Lin- 
coln, and  the  best  Democrats  would  not  vote  for  him  for  that  reason.  I  returned 
from  Washington  after  the  passage  of  the  Compromise  Measures  in  1850,  and  when 
I  found  Molony  running  under  John  Wentworth's  tutelage,  and  on  his  platform,  I 
denounc  ed  him,  and  declared  that  he  was  no  Democrat.  In  my  speech  at  Chicago, 
just  bsibre  the  election  that  year,  I  went  before  the  infuriated  people  of  that  city 
and  vindicated  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850.  Remember  the  city  council  had 
passed  resolutions  nullifying  acts  of  Congress  and  instructing  the  police  to  withhold 
their  assistance  from  the  execution  of  the  laws,  and  as  I  was  the  only  man  in  the 
city  of  Chicago  who  was  responsible  for  the  passage  of  the  Compromise  Measures, 
I  went  before  the  crowd,  justified  each  and  every  one  of  those  measures,  and  let  it  be 
said  to  the  eternal  honor  of  the  people  of  Chicago,  that  when  they  were  convinced 
by  my  exposition  of  those  measures  that  they  were  right  and  they  had  done  wrong 
in  opposing  them,  they  repealed  their  nullifying  resolutions  and  declared  that  they 
would  acquiesce  in  and  support  the  laws  of  the  land.  These  facts  are  well  known, 
and  Mr.  Lincoln  can  only  get  up  individual  instances,  dating  back  to  1849-'50,  which 
are  contradicted  by  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Democratic  creed. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  want  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  Black  Republican 
doctrine  of  no  more  slave  States.  Farnsworth  is  the  candidate  of  his  party  to-day 
in  the  Chicago  District,  and  he  made  a  speech  in  the  last  Congress  in  which  he  called 
upon  God  to  palsy  his  right  arm  if  he  ever  voted  for  the  admission  of  another  slave 
State,  whether  the  people  wanted  it  or  not.  Lovejoy  is  making  speeches  all  over 
the  State  for  Lincoln  now,  and  taking  ground  against  any  more  slave  States.  Wash- 
burne,  the  Black  Republican  candidate  for  Congress  in  the  Galena  District,  is  mak- 
ing speeches  in  favor  of  this  same  Abolition  platform  declaring  no  more  slave  States. 
Why  are  men  running  for  Congress  in  the  northern  districts,  and  taking  that  Aboli- 
tion platform  for  their  guide,  when  Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  want  to  be  held  to  it  down 
here  in  Egypt  and  in  the  center  of  the  State,  and  objects  to  it  so  as  to  get  votes 
here.  Let  me  tell  Mr.  Lincoln  that  his  party  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State  hold 
to  that  Abolition  platform,  and  that  if  they  do  not  in  the  South  and  in  the  center 
they  present  the  extraordinary  spectacle  of  a  "  house  divided  against  itself,"  and 
hence  "  cannot  stand."  I  now  bring  down  upon  him  the  vengeance  of  hi;$  own  scrip- 
tural quotation,  and  give  it  a  more  appropriate  application  than  he  did,  when  I  say 
to  him  that  his  party,  Abolition  in  one  end  of  the  State  and  opposed  to  it  in  the  other, 
is  a  house  divided  against  itself,  and  cannot  stand,  and  ought  not  to  stand,  for  it  at- 
tempts to  cheat  the  American  people  out  of  their  votes  by  disguising  its  sentiments. 

Mr.  Lincoln  attempts  to  cover  up  and  get  over  his  Abolitionism  by  telling  you  that 
he  was  raised  a  little  east  of  you,  beyond  the  Wabash  in  Indiana,  and  he  thinks  that 
makes  a  mighty  sound  and  good  man  of  him  on  all  these  questions.  I  do  not  know 
that  the  place  where  a  man  is  born  or  raised  has  much  to  do  with  his  political  prin- 
ciples. The  worst  Abolitionist  I  have  ever  known  in  Illinois  have  been  men  who 
have  sold  their  slaves  in  Alabama  and  Kentucky,  and  have  come  here  and  turned 
Abolitionists  whilst  spending  the  money  got  for  the  negroes  they  sold,  and  I  do  not 
know  that  an  Abolitionist  from  Indiana  or  Kentucky  ought  to  have  any  more  credit 
because  he  was  born  and  raised  among  slaveholders.  I  do  not  know  that  a  native  of 
Kentucky  is  mort  excusable  because  raised  among  slaves,  his  father  and  mother 


134 

having  owned  slaves,  he  comes  to  Illinois,  turns  Abolitionist,  ami  slanders  the  graves 
of  his  lather  and  mother,  and  breathes  curses  upon  the  institutions  under  which  he 
was  born,  and  his  father  and  mother  bred.  True,  I  was  not  born  out  weot  here.  1 
was  born  away  down  in  Yankee  land,  I  was  born  in  a  valley  in  Vermont,  with  the 
high  mountains  around  me.  I  love  the  old  green  mountains  and  valleys  of  Vermont, 
where  I  was  born,  and  where  I  played  in  my  childhood.  I  went  up  to  visit  them 
some  seven  or  eight  years  ago,  for  the  first  time  for  twenty  odd  years.  When  I  got 
there  they  treated  me  very  kindly.  They  invited  me  to  the  commencement  of  their 
college,  placed  me  on  the  seats  with  their  distinguished  guests,  and  conferred  upon 
me  the  degree  of  LL.  D.  in  Latin  (doctor  of  laws),  the  same  as  they  did  old  Hickory, 
at  Cambridge,  many  years  ago,  and  I  give  you  my  word  and  honor  I  understood  juf*t 
as  much  of  the  Latin  as  he  did.  When  they  got  through  conferring  the  honorary 
degree,  they  called  upon  me  for  a  speech,  and  I  got  up  with  rny  heart  lull  and  swell- 
ing witli  gratitude  for  their  kindness,  and  I  said  to  them,  "My  friends,  Vermont  is 
the  most  glorious  spot  on  the  face  of  this  globe  for  a  man  to  be  born  in,  provided  he 
emigrates  when  he  is  very  young." 

I  emigrated  when  I  was  very  young.  I  came  out  here  when  I  was  a  boy,  and  I 
found  rny  mind  liberalized,  and  rny  opinions  enlarged  when  I  got  on  these  broad 
prairies,  with  only  the  Heavens  to  bound  my  vision,  instead  of  having  them  circum- 
scribed by  the  little  narrow  ridges  that  surrounded  the  valley  where  I  was  born. 
But,  I  discard  all  flings  of  the  land  where  a  man  was  born.  I  wish  to  be  judged  by 
my  principles,  by  those  great  public  measures  and  Constitutional  principles  upon 
which  the  peace,  the  happiness  and  the  perpetuity  of  this  Republic  now  rest. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  framed  another  question,  propounded  it  to  me,  and  desired  my 
answer.  As  I  have  said  before,  I  did  not  put  a  question  to  him  that  I  did  not  first 
lay  a  foundation  for  by  showing  that  it  was  a  part  of  the  platform  of  the  party  whose 
votes  he  is  now  seeking,  adopted  in  a  majority  of  the  counties  where  he  now  hopes 
to  get  a  majority,  and  supported  by  the  candidates  of  his  party  now  running  in  those 
counties.  But  I  will  answer  his  question.  It  is  as  follows  :  "If  the  slaveholding  citi- 
zens of  a  United  States  Territory  should  need  and  demand  Congressional  legislation 
for  the  protection  of  their  slave  property  in  such  Territory,  would  you,  as  a  member 
of  Congress,  vote  for  or  against  such  legislation  ?"  I  answer  him  that  it  is  a  funda- 
mental article  in  the  Democratic  creed  that  there  should  be  non-interference  and 
non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  or  Territories.  Mr.  Lin- 
coln could  have  found  an  answer  to  his  question  in  the  Cincinnati  platform,  if  he  had 
desired  it.  The  Democratic  party  have  always  stood  by  that  great  principle  of  non- 
interference and  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  Terri- 
tories alike,  and  I  stand  on  that  platform  now. 

Now  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  Lincoln  did  not  define  his  own 
position  in  his  own  question.  How  does  he  stand  on  that  question?  He  put  the 
question  to  me  at  Freeport  whether  or  riot  I  would  vote  to  admit  Kansas  into  the 
Union  before  she  had  93,420  inhabitants.  I  answered  him  at  once  that  it  having 
been  decided  that  Kansas  had  now  population  enough  for  a  slave  State,  she  had  pop- 
ulation enough  for  a  free  State. 

I  answered  the  question  unequivocally,  and  then  I  asked  him  whether  he  would 
vote  for  or  against  the  admission  of  Kansas  before  she  had  93,420  inhabitants,  and 
he  would  not  answer  me.  To-day  he  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that,  in  his 
opinion,  my  answer  on  that  question  was  not  quite  plain  enough,  and  yet  he  has 
not  answered  it  himself.  He  now  puts  a  question  in  relation  to  Congressional 
interference  in  the  Territories  to  me.  I  answer  him  direct,  and  yet  he  has  not 
answered  the  question  himself.  I  ask  you  whether  n  man  has  any  right,  in 
common  decency,  to  put  questions  in  these  public  discussions,  to  his  opponent, 
which  he  will  not  answer  himself,  when  they  are  pressed  home  to  him.  I  have 
asked  him  three  times,  whether  he  would  vote  to  admit  Kansas  whenever  the 
people  applied  with  a  Constitution  of  their  own  making  and  their  own  adoption, 
under  circumstances  that  were  fair,  just  and  unexceptionable,  but  I  cannot  get 


135 

V 

an  answer  from  him.  Nor  will  he  answer  the  question  which  he  put  to  me, 
and  which  I  have  just  answered  in  relation  to  Congressional  interference  in  the 
Territories,  by  making  a  slave  code  there. 

It  is  true  that  he  goes  on  to  answer  the  question  by  arguing  that  under  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  it  is  the  duty  of  a  man  to  vote  for  a  slave  code  in  the 
Territories.  He  says  that  it  is  his  duty,  under  the  decision  that  the  court  has  made, 
and  if  he  believes  in  that  decision  he  would  be  a  perjured  man  if  he  did  not  give  the 
vote.  I  want  to  know  whether  he  is  not  bound  to  a  decision  which  is  contrary  to 
his  opinions  just  as  much  as  to  one  in  accordance  with  his  opinions.  If  the  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  tribunal  created  by  the  Constitution  to  decide  the  ques- 
tion, is  final  and  binding,  is  he  not  bound  by  it  just  as  strongly  as  if  he  was  for  it 
instead  of  against  it  originally  ?  Is  every  man  in  this  land  allowed  to  resist  decis- 
ions he  does  not  like,  arid  only  support  those  that  meet  his  approval  ?  What  are 
important  courts  worth  unless  their  decisions  are  binding  on  all  good  citizens  ?  It  is 
the  fundamental  principles  of  the  judiciary  that  its  decisions  are  final.  It  is  created 
for  that  purpose,  so  that  when  you  cannot  agree  among  yourselves  on  a  disputed  point 
you  appeal  to  the  judicial  tribunal  which  steps  in  and  decides  for  you,  and  that  decis- 
ion is  then  binding  on  every  good  citizen.  It  is  the  law  of  the  land  just  as  much 
with  Mr.  Lincoln  against  it  as  for  it.  And  yet  he  says  that  if  that  decision  is  bind- 
ing he  is  a  perjured  man  if  he  does  not  vote  for  a  slave  code  in  the  different  Terri- 
tories of  this  Union.  Well,  if  you  [turning  to  Mr.  Lincoln^]  are  not  going  to  resist 
the  decision,  if  you  obey  it,  and  do  not  intend  to  array  mob  law  against  the  constitu- 
ted authorities,  then,  according  to  your  own  statement,  you  will  be  a  perjured  man  if 
you  do  not  vote  to  establish  slavery  in  these  Territories.  My  doctrine  is,  that  even 
taking  Mr.  Lincoln's  view  that  the  decision  recognizes  the  right  of  a  man  to  carry 
his  slaves  into  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  if  he  pleases,  yet  after  he  gets 
there  he  needs  affirmative  law  to  make  that  right  of  any  value.  The  same  doctrine 
not  only  applies  to  slave  property,  but  all  other  kinds  of  property.  Chief  Justice 
Taney  places  it  upon  the  ground  that  slave  property  is  on  an  equal  footing  with  other 
property.  Suppose  one  of  your  merchants  should  move  to  J£ansas  and  open  a  liquor 
store;  he  has  a  right  to  take  groceries  an!  liquors  there,  but  the  mode  of  selling 
them,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  they  shall  be  sold,  and  all  the  remedies 
must  be  prescribed  by  local  legislation,  and  if  that  is  unfriendly  it  will  drive  him 
out  just  as  effectually  as  if  there  was  a  Constitutional  provision  against  the  sale  of 
liquor.  So  the  absence  of  local  legislation  to  encourage  and  support  slave  property 
in  a  Territory  excludes  it  practically  just  as  effectually  as  if  there  was  a  positive 
Constitutional  provision  against  it.  Hence,  I  assert  that  under  the  Dred  Scott  decis- 
ion you  cannot  maintain  slavery  a  day  in  a  Territory  where  there  is  an  unwilling 
people  and  unfriendly  legislation.  If  the  people  are  opposed  to  it,  our  right  is  a 
barren,  worthless,  useless  right,  and  if  they  are  for  it,  they  will  support  and  encour- 
age it.  We  come  right  back,  therefore,  to  the  practical  question,  if  the  people  of  a 
Territory  want  slavery  they  will  have  it,  and  if  they  do  not  want  it  you  cannot  force 
it  on  them.  And  this  is  the  practical  question,  the  great  principle,  upon  which  our 
institutions  rest.  I  am  willing  to  take  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  it  was 
pronounced  by  that  august  tribunal  without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  I  would 
have  decided  that  way  or  not  I  have  had  many  a  decision  made  against  me  on 
questions  of  law  which  I  did  not  like,  but  I  was  bound  by  them  just  as  much  as  if  I 
hud  had  a  hand  in  making  them,  and  approved  them.  Did  you  ever  see  a  lawyer  or 
a  client  lose  his  case  that  he  approved  the  decision  of  the  court?  They  always  think 
the  decision  unjust  when  it  is  given  against  them.  In  a  Government  of  laws  like 
ours  we  must  sustain  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  maintain  the  rights 
of  the  States  as  they  are  guarantied  under  the  Constitution,  and  then  we  will 
have  peace  and  harmony  between  the  different  States  and  sections  of  this  glorious 
Union. 


136 


FOURTH  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  CHARLESTON, 

September  18,  1858. 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  SPEECH. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  It  will  be  very  difficult  for  an  audience  so  large  as 
this  to  hear  distinctly  what  a  speaker  says,  and  consequently  it  is  important  that  as 
profound  silence  be  preserved  as  possible. 

While  I  was  at  the  hotel  to-day,  an  elderly  gentleman  called  upon  me  to  know 
whether  I  was  really  in  favor  of  producing  a  perfect  equality  between  the  negroes 
and  white  people.  While  I  had  not  proposed  to  myself  on  this  occasion  to  say  much 
on  that  subject,  yet  as  the  question  was  asked  me  I  thought  I  would  occupy  perhaps 
five  minutes  in  saying  something  in  regard  to  it  I  will  say  then  that  I  am  not,  nor 
ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  bringing  about  in  any  way  the  social  and  political  equality 
of  the  white  and  black  races — that  I  am  not  nor  ever  have  been  in  favor  of  making 
voters  or  jurors  of  negroes,  nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold  office,  nor  to  intermarry 
with  white  people ;  and  I  will  say  in  addition  to  this  that  there  is  a  physical  differ- 
ence between  the  white  and  black  races  which  I  believe  will  forever  forbid  the  two 
races  living  together  on  terms  of  social  and  political  equality.  And  inasmuch  as  they 
cannot  so  live,  while  they  do  remain  together  there  must  be  the  position  of  superior 
and  inferior,  and  I  as  much  as  any  other  man  am  in  favor  of  having  the  superior  po- 
sition assigned  to  the  white  race.  I  say  upon  this  occasion  I  do  not .  perceive  that 
because  the  white  man  is  to  have  the  superior  position  the  negro  should  be  denied 
every  thing.  I  do  not  understand  that  because  I  do  not  want  a  negro  woman  for  a 
slave  I  must  necessarily  want  her  for  a  wife.  My  understanding  is  that  I  can  just 
let  her  alone.  I  am  now  in  my  fiftieth  year,  and  I  certainly  never  have  had  a  black 
woman  for  either  a  slave  or  a  wife.  So  it  seems  to  me  quite  possible  for  us  to  get 
along  without  making  either  slaves  or  wives  of  negroes.  I  will  add  to  this  that  I 
have  never  seen,  to  my  knowledge,  a  man,  woman  or  child  who  was  in  favor  of  pro- 
ducing a  perfect  equality,  social  and  political,  between  negroes  and  white  men.  I 
recollect  of  but  one  distinguished  instance  that  I  ever  heard  of  so  frequently  as  to  be 
entirely  satisfied  of  its  correctness — and  that  is  the  case  of  Judge  Douglas's  old 
friend  Col.  Richard  M.  Johnson.  I  will  also  add  to  the  remarks  I  have  made  (for  I 
am  not  going  to  enter  at  large  upon  this  subject),  that  I  have  never  had  the  least  appre- 
hension that  I  or  my  friends  would  marry  negroes  if  there  was  no  law  to  keep  them 
from  it ;  but  as  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  seem  to  be  in  great  apprehension  that 
they  might,  if  there  were  no  law  to  keep  them  from  it,  I  give  him  the  most  solemn 
pledge  that  I  will  to  the  very  last  stand  by  the  law  of  this  State,  which  forbids  the 
marrying  of  white  people  with  negroes.  I  will  add  one  further  word,  which  is  this  : 
that  I  do  not  understand  that  there  is  any  place  where  an  alteration  of  the  social  and 
political  relations  of  the  negro  and  the  white  man  can  be  made  except  in  the  State 
Legislature — not  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States — and  as  I  do  not  really  ap- 
prehend the  approach  of  any  such  thing  myself,  and  as  Judge  Douglas  seems  to  be 
in  constant  horror  that  some  such  danger  is  rapidly  approaching,  I  propose  as  the 
best  means  to  prevent  it  that  the  Judge  be  kept  at  home  and  placed  in  the  State 
Legislature  to  fight  the  measure.  I  do  not  propose  dwelling  longer  at  this  time  on 
this  subject. 

When  Judge  Trumbull,  our  other  Senator  in  Congress,  returned  to  Illinois  in  the 
month  of  August,  he  made  a  speech  at  Chicago,  in  which  he  made  what  may  be 
called  a  charge  against  Judge  Douglas,  which  1  understand  proved  to  be  very  offen- 


137 

give  to  him.  The  Judge  was  at  that  time  out  upon  one  of  his  speaking  tours  through 
the  country,  and  when  the  news  of  it  reached  him,  as  I  am  informed,  he  denounced 
Judge  Trumbull  in  rather  harsh  terms  for  having  said  what  he  did  in  regard  to  that 
matter.  I  was  traveling  at  that  time,  and  speaking  at  the  same  places  with  Judge 
Douglas  on  subsequent  days,  and  when  I  heard  of  what  Judge  Trumbull  had  paid  of 
Douglas,  and  what  Douglas  had  said  back  again,  I  felt  that  I  was  in  a  position  whore 
I  could  not  remain  entirely  silent  in  regard  to  the  matter.  Consequently,  upon  two 
or  three  occasions  I  alluded  to  it,  and  alluded  to  it  in  no  otherwise  than  to  say  tha< 
in  regard  to  the  charge  brought  by  Trumbull  against  Douglas,  I  personally  knew  no 
thing,  and  sought  to  say  nothing  about  it — that  I  did  personally  know  Judge  1  ram 
})UH — that  I  believed  him  to  be  a  man  of  veracity — that  I  believed  him  to  be  a  mat 
of  capacity  sufficient  to  know  very  well  whether  an  assertion  he  was  making,  as  a 
conclusion  drawn  from  a  set  of  facts,  was  true  or  false ;  and  as  a  conclusion  oi'  my 
own  from  that,  I  stated  it  as  my  belief,  if  Trumbull  should  ever  be  called  upon,  be 
would  prove  every  thing  he  had  said.  I  said  this  upon  two  or  three  occasions.  Upon 
a  subsequent  occasion,  Judge  Trumbull  spoke  again  before  an  audience  at  Alton,  and 
upon  that  occasion  not  only  repeated  his  charge  against  Douglas,  but  arrayed  the  evi- 
dence he  relied  upon  to  substantiate  it.  This  speech  was  published  at  length ;  and 
subsequently  at  Jacksonville  Judge  Douglas  alluded  to  the  matter.  In  the  course  of 
his  speech,  and  near  the  close  of  it,  he  stated  in  regard  to  myself  what  I  will  now 
read :  "  Judge  Douglas  proceeded  to  remark  that  he  should  not  hereafter  occupy  his 
time  in  refuting  such  charges  made  by  Trumbull,  but  that  Lincoln  having  indorsed 
the  character  of  Trumbull  for  veracity,  he  should  hold  him  (Lincoln)  responsible  for 
the  slanders."  I  have  done  simply  what  I  have  told  you,  to  subject  me  to  this  invi- 
tation to  notice  the  charge.  I  now  wish  to  say  that  it  had  not  originally  been  my 
purpose  to  discuss  that  matter  at  all.  But  inasmuch  as  it  seems  to  be  the  wish  of 
Judge  Douglas  to  hold  me  responsible  for  it,  then  for  once  in  my  life  I  will  play  Gen- 
eral Jackson,  and  to  the  just  extent  I  take  the  responsibility. 

I  wish  to  say  at  the  beginning  that  I  will  hand  to  the  reporters  that  portion  of 
Judge  TrumbulTs  Alton  speech  which  was  devoted  to  this  matter,  and  also  that  por- 
tion of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  made  at  Jacksonville  in  answer  to  it.  I  shall  thereby 
furnish  the  readers  of  this  debate  with  the  complete  discussion  between  Trumbull 
and  Douglas.  J  cannot  now  read  them,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  take  half  of  my 
first  hour  to  do  so.  I  can  only  make  some  comments  upon  them.  Trumbull's  charge 
is  in  the  following  words :  "  Now,  the  charge  is,  that  there  was  a  plot  entered  into 
to  have  a  Constitution  formed  for  Kansas,  and  put  in  force,  without  giving  the  people 
an  opportunity  to  vote  upon  it,  and  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  in  the  plot."  I  will  stale, 
without  quoting  further,  for  all  will  have  an  opportunity  of  reading  it  hereafter,  that 
Judge  Trumbull  brings  forward  what  he  regards  as  sufficient  evidence  to  substantiate 
this  charge.* 

It  will  be  perceived  Judge  Trumbull  shows  that  Senator  Bigler,  upon  the  floor  of 
the  Senate,  had  declared  there  had  been  a  conference  among  the  Senators,  in  whioh 
conference  it  was  determined  to  have  an  Enabling  Act  passed  for  the  people  of  Kan- 
sas to  form  a  Constitution  under,  and  in  this  conference  it  was  agreed  among  them 
that  it  was  best  not  to  have  a  provision  for  submitting  the  Constitution  to  a  vote  of 
the  people  after  it  should  be  formed.  He  then  brings  forward  to  show,  and  showing, 
as  he  deemed,  that  Judge  Douglas  reported  the  bill  back  to  the  Senate  with  that 
clause  stricken  out.  He  then  shows  that  there  was  a  new  clause  inserted  into  the 
bill,  which  would  in  its  nature  prevent  a  reference  of  the  Constitution  back  for  a  vote 
of  the  people — if,  indeed,  upon  a  mere  silence  in  the  law,  it  could  be  assumed  that 
they  had  the  right  to  vote  upon  it.  These  are  the  general  statements  that  he  has 
made. 

I  propose  to  examine  the  points  in  Judge  Douglas's  speech,  in  which  he  attempts 
to  answer  that  speech  of  Judge  Trumbull's.  When  you  come  to  examine  Judge 

*  See  Trumbull's  speech  at  the  close  of  this  dubate. 


138 

Douglas's  speech,  you  will  find  that  the  first  point  he  makes  is:  u  Suppose  it  wre 
true  that  there  was  such  a  change  in  the  bill,  and  that  I  struck  it  out — is  that  a  proof 
of  a  plot  to  force  a  Constitution  upon  them  against  their  will?"  His  striking  out 
such  a  provision,  if  there  was  such  a  one  in  the  bill,  he  argues,  does  not  establish  the 
proof  that  it  was  stricken  out  for  the  purpose  of  robbing  the  people  of  that  right.  I 
would  say,  in  the  first  place,  that  that  would  be  a  most  manifest  reason  for  it  It  is 
true,  as  Judge  Douglas  states,  that  many  Territorial  bills  have  passed  without  having 
such  a  provision  in  them.  I  believe  it  is  true,  though  I  am  not  certain,  that  in  some 
instances,  Constitutions  framed  under  such  bills  have  been  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the 
people,  with  the  law  silent  upon  the  subject,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  they  once 
had  their  Enabling  Acts  framed  with  an  express  provision  for  submitting  the  Con- 
stitution to  be  framed  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  and  then  that  they  were  stricken  oui 
when  Congress  did  not  mean  to  alter  the  effect  of  the  law.  That  there  have  been 
bills  which  never  had  the  provision  in,  I  do  not  question ;  but  when  was  that  pro- 
vision taken  out  of  one  that  it  was  in?  More  especially  does  this  evidence  tend  to 
prove  the  proposition  that  Trumbull  advanced,  when  we  remember  that  the  provision 
was  stricken  out  of  the  bill  almost  simultaneously  with  the  time  that  Bigler  says 
there  was  a  conference  among  certain  Senators,  and  in  which  it  was  agreed  that  a  bill 
should  be  passed  leaving  that  out.  Judge  Douglas,  in  answering  Trumbull,  omits  to 
attend  to  the  testimony  of  Bigler,  that  there  was  a  meeting  in  which  it  was  agreed 
they  should  so  frame  the  bill  that  there  should  be  no  submission  of  the  Constitution 
to  a  vote  of  the  people.  The  Judge  does  not  notice  this  part  of  it.  If  you  take  this 
as  one  piece  of  evidence,  and  then  ascertain  that  simultaneously  Judge  Dougla? 
struck  out  a  provision  that  did  require  it  to  be  submitted,  and  put  the  two  together,  I 
think  it  will  make  a  pretty  fair  show  of  proof  that  Judge  Douglas  did,  as  Trumbull 
says,  enter  into  a  plot  to  put  in  force  a  Constitution  for  Kansas  without  giving  the 
people  any  opportunity  of  voting  upon  it. 

But  I  must  hurry  on.  The  next  proposition  that  Judge  Douglas  puts  is  this : 
*  But  upon  examination  it  turns  out  that  the  Toombs  bill  never  did  contain  a  clause 
requiring  the  Constitution  to  be  submitted."  This  is  a  mere  question  of  fact,  and 
can  be  determined  by  evidence.  I  only  want  to  ask  this  question — why  did  not 
Judge  Douglas  say  that  these  words  were  not  stricken  out  of  the  Tooinbs  bill,  or 
this  bill  from  which  it  is  alleged  the  provision  was  stricken  out — a  bill  which  goes 
by  the  name  of  Toornbs,  because  he  originally  brought  it  forward  ?  I  ask  why,  if 
the  Judge  wanted  to  make  a  direct  issue  with  Trumbull,  did  he  not  take  the  exact 
proposition  Trumbull  made  in  his  speech,  and  say  it  was  not  stricken  out?  Trum- 
bull has  given  the  exact  words  that  he  says  were  in  the  Toornbs  bill,  and  he  alleges 
that  when  the  bill  came  back,  they  were  stricken  out.  Judge  Douglas  does  not  say 
that  the  words  which  Trumbull  says  were  stricken  out,  were  not  so  stricken  out,  but 
he  says  there  was  no  provision  in  the  Toombs  bill  to  submit  the  Constitution  to  a 
vote  of  the  people.  We  see  at  once  that  he  is  merely  making  an  issue  upon  the 
meaning  of  the  words.  He  has  not  undertaken  to  say  that  Trumbull  tells  a  lie 
about  these  words  being  stricken  out ;  but  he  is  really,  when  pushed  up  to  it,  only 
taking  an  issue  upon  the  meaning  of  the  words.  Now,  then,  if  there  be  any  issue 
upon  the  meaning  of  the  words,  or  if  there  be  upon  the  question  of  fact  as  to  whether 
these  words  were  stricken  out,  I  have  before  me  what  I  suppose  to  be  a  genuine  copy 
of  the  Toombs  bill,  in  which  it  can  be  shown  that  the  words  Trumbull  says  were  in 
it,  were,  in  fact,  originally  there.  If  there  be  any  dispute  upon  the  fact,  I  have  got 
the  documents  here  to  show  they  were  there.  If  there  be  any  controversy  upon  the 
sense  of  the  words — whether  these  words  which  were  stricken  out  really  constituted 
a  provision  for  submitting  the  matter  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  as  that  is  a  matter  of 
argument,  I  think  I  may  as  well  use  Trumbull's  own  argument.  He  says  that  the 
proposition  is  in  these  words : 

"That  the  following  propositions  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  offered  to  the  said 
Convention  of  the  people  of  Kansas  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejec- 
tion ;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  Convention  and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election 


139 

for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  United  States  and 
the  said  State  of  Kansas." 

Now,  Trumbull  alleges  that  these  last  words  were  stricken  out  of  the  bill  when  it 
came  back,  and  he  says  this  was  a  provision  for  submitting  the  Constitution  to  a  vote 
of  the  people,  and  his  argument  is  this :  "  Would  it  have  been  possible  to  ratify  the 
land  propositions  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  unless  such  an 
election  was  to  be  held?"  That  is  Trumbull's  argument.  Now  Judge  Douglas  does 
not  meet  the  charge  at  all,  but  he  stands  up  and  says  there  was  no  such  proposition 
in  that  bill  for  submitting  the  Constitution  to  be  framed  to  a  vote  of  the  people. 
Trumbull  admits  that  the  language  is  not  a  direct  provision  for  submitting  it,  but  it  is 
a  provision  necessarily  implied  from  another  provision.  He  asks  you  how  it  is  pos- 
sible to  ratify  the  land  proposition  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
if  there  was  no  election  to  be  held  for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  And  he 
goes  on  to  show  that  it  is  not  any  less  a  law  because  the  provision  is  put  in  that  indi- 
rect shape  than  it  would  be  if  it  was  put  directly.  But  I  presume  I  have  said 
enough  to  draw  attention  to  this  point,  and  I  pass  it  by  also. 

Another  one  of  the  points  that  Judge  Douglas  makes  upon  Trumbull,  and  at  very 
great  length,  is,  that  Trumbull,  while  the  bill  was  pending,  said  in  a  speech  in  the 
Senate  that  he  supposed  the  Constitution  to  be  made  would  have  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people.  He  asks,  if  Trumbull  thought  so  then,  what  ground  is  there  for  any  body 
thinking  otherwise  now  ?  Fellow-citizens,  this  much  may  be  said  in  reply  :  That  bill 
had  been  in  the  hands  of  a  party  to  which  Trumbull  did  not  belong.  It  had  been  in 
the  hands  of  the  committee  at  the  head  of  which  Judge  Douglas  stood.  Trumbull 
perhaps  had  a  printed  copy  of  the  original  Toombs  bill.  I  have  not  the  evidence  on 
that  point,  except  a  sort  of  inference  I  draw  from  the  general  course  of  business 
there.  What  alterations,  or  what  provisions  in  the  way  of  altering,  were  going  on 
in  committee,  Trumbull  had  no  means  of  knowing,  until  the  altered  bill  was  reported 
back.  Soon  afterward,  when  it  was  reported  back,  there  was  a  discussion  over  it, 
and  perhaps  Trumbull  in  reading  it  hastily  in  the  altered  form  did  not  perceive  all 
the  bearings  of  the  alterations.  He  was  hastily  borne  into  the  debate,  and  it  does' 
riot  follow  that  because  there  was  something  in  it  Trumbull  did  not  perceive,  that 
something  did  not  exist.  More  than  this,  is  it  true  that  what  Trumbull  did  can  have 
any  effect  on  what  Douglas  did  ?  Suppose  Trumbull  had  been  in  the  plot  with  these 
other  men,  would  that  let  Douglas  out  of  it?  Would  it  exonerate  Douglas  that 
Trumbull  didn't  then  perceive  he  was  in  the  plot?  He  also  asks  the  question :  Why 
didn't  Trumbull  propose  to  amend  the  bill  if  he  thought  it  needed  any  amendment  ? 
Why,  I  believe  that  every  thing  Judge  Trumbull  had  proposed,  particularly  in  con- 
nection with  this  question  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  since  he  had  been  on  the  floor 
of  the  Senate,  had  been  promptly  voted  down  by  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends. 
He  had  no  promise  that  an  amendment  offered  by  him  to  any  thing  on  this  subject 
would  receive  the  slightest  consideration.  Judge  Trumbull  did  bring  to  the  notice  of 
the  Senate  at  that  time  to  the  fact  that  there  was  no  provision  for  submitting  the  Con- 
stitution about  to  be  made  for  the  people  of  Kansas,  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  I 
believe  I  may  venture  to  say  that  Judge  Douglas  made  some  reply  to  this  speech  of 
Judge  Trumbull's,  hit  he  never  noticed  that  part  of  it  at  all.  And  so  the  thing 
passed  by.  I  think,  then,  the  fact  that  Judge  Trumbull  offered  no  amendment,  does 
not  throw  much  blame  upon  him ;  and  if  it  did,  it  does  not  reach  the  question  of  fact 
as  fo  what  Judge  Douglas  was  doing.  I  repeat,  that  if  Trumbull  had  himself  been 
in  the  plot,  it  would  not  at  all  relieve  the  others  who  were  in  it  from  blame.  If  I 
should  be  indicted  for  murder,  and  upon  the  trial  it  should  be  discovered  that  I  had 
been  implicated  in  that  murder,  but  that  the  prosecuting  witness  was  guilty  too,  that 
would  not  at  all  touch  the  question  of  my  crime.  It  would  be  no  relief  to  my 
neck  that  they  discovered  this  other  man  who  charged  the  crime  upon  me  to  be 
guilty  too. 

Another  one  of  the  points  Judge  Douglas  makes  upon  Judge  Trumbull  is,  that 
when  he  spoke  in  Chicago  he  made  his  charge  to  rest  upon  the  fact  that  the 


140 

bill  had  the  provision  in  it  for  submitting  the  Constitution  to  a  vote  of  the 
people,  when  it  went  into  his  (Judge  Douglas's)  hands,  that  it  was  missing  when  he 
reported  it  to  the  Senate,  and  that  in  a  public  speech  he  had  subsequently  said  the 
alteration  in  the  bill  was  made  while  it  was  in  committee,  and  that  they  were  made 
in  consultation  between  him  (Judge  Douglas)  and  Toombs.  And  Judge  Douglas 
goes  on  to  comment  upon  the  fact  of  TrumbuH's  adducing  in  his  Alton  speech  the 
proposition  that  the  bill  not  only  came  back  with  that  proposition  stricken  out,  but 
with  another  clause  and  another  provision  in  it,  saying  that  "until  the  complete  exe- 
cution of  this  act  there  shall  be  no  election  in  said  Territory," — which  Trumbull 
argued  was  not  only  taking  the  provision  for  submitting  to  a  vote  of  the  people  out 
of  the  bill,  but  was  adding  an  affirmative  one,  in  that  it  prevented  the  people  from 
exercising  the  right  under  a  bill  that  was  merely  silent  on  the  question.  Now  in 
regard  to  what  he  says,  that  Trumbull  shii'ts  the  issue — that  he  shifts  his  ground — and 
I  believe  he  uses  the  term,  that  "it  being  proven  false,  he  has  changed  ground" — I 
call  upon  all  of  you,  when  you  come  to  examine  that  portion  of  TrumbuH's  speech 
(for  it  will  make  a  part  of  mine),  to  examine  whether  Trumbull  has  shifted  his 
ground  or  hot.  I  say  he  did  not  shift  his  ground,  but  that  he  brought  forward  his 
original  charge  and  the  evidence  to  sustain  it  yjet  more  fully,  but  precisely  as  he 
originally  made  it.  Then,  in  addition  thereto,  he  brought  in  a  new  piece  of  evidence. 
He  shifted  no  ground.  He  brought  no  no  new  piece  of  evidence  inconsistent  with 
his  former  testimony,  but  he  brought  a  new  piece,  tending,  as  he  thought,  and  as  I 
think,  to  prove  his  proposition.  To  illustrate :  A  man  brings  an  accusation  against 
another,  and  on  trial  the  man  making  the  charge  introduces  A  and  B  to  prove  the 
accusation.  At  a  second  trial  he  introduces  the  same  witnesses,  who  tell  the  same 
story  as  before,  and  a  third  witness,  who  tells  the  same  thing  and  in  addition,  gives 
further  testimony  corroborative  of  the  charge.  So  with  Trumbull.  There  was  no 
shifting  of  ground,  nor  inconsistency  of  testimony  between  the  new  piece  of  evidence 
and  what  he  originally  introduced. 

Rut  Judge  Douglas  says  that  he  himself  moved  to  strike  out  that  last  provision  of 
the  bill,  and  that  on  his  motion  it  was  stricken  out  and  a  substitute  inserted.  That 
I  presume  is  the  truth.  I  presume  it  is  true  that  that  last  proposition  was  stricken 
out  by  Judge  Douglas.  Trumbull  has  not  said  it  was  not.  Trumbull  has  himself 
said  that  it  was  so  stricken  out.  He  says:  "I  am  speaking  of  the  bill  as  Judge 
Douglas  reported  it  back.  It  was  amended  somewhat  in  the  Senate  before  it  passed, 
but  I  am  speaking  of  it  as  lie  brought  it  back."  Now  when  Judge  Douglas  parades 
the  fact  that  the  provision  was  stricken  out  of  the  bill  when  it  came  back,  he  asserts 
nothing  contrary  to  what  Trumbull  alleges.  Trumbuli  has  only  said  that  he  origin- 
ally put  it  in — not  that  he  did  not  strike  it  out.  Trumbull  says  it  was  not  in  the  bill 
when  it  went  to  the  committee.  When  it  came  back  it  was  in,  and  Judge  Douglas 
said  the  alterations  were  made  by  him  in  consultation  with  Toornbs.  Trumbull 
alleges  theref  >re,  as  his  conclusion,  that  Judge  Douglas  put  it  in.  Then  if  Douglas 
wants  to  contradict  Trumbuli  and  call  him  a  liar,  let  him  say  he  did  not  put  it  in, 
and  not  that  he  didn't  take  it  out  again.  It  is  said  that  a  bear  is  sometimes  hard 
enough  pushed  to  drop  a  cub,  and  so  I  presume  it  was  in  this  case.  I  presume  the 
truth  is  that  Douglas  put  it  in  and  afterward  took  it  out.  That  I  take  it  is  the  truth 
about  it.  Judge  Trumbull  says  one  thing ;  Douglas  says  another  thing,  and  the  two 
don't  contradict  one  another  at  all.  The  question  is,  what  did  tie  put  it  in  for  ?  In 
the  first  place  what  did  he  take  the  other  provision  out  of  the  bill  for? — the  provis- 
ion which  Trumbull  argued  was  necessary  for  submitting  the  Constitution  to  a  vote 
of  the  people?  What  did  he  tak'e  that  out  for?  and  having  taken  it  out,  what  did  he 
put  this  in  for?  I  say  that  in  the  run  of  things,  it  is  not  unlikely  forces  conspire  to 
render  it  vastly  expedient  for  Judge  Douglas  to  take  that  latter  clause  out  again. 
The  question  that  Trumbull  has  made  is  that  Judge  Douglas  put  it  in,  and  he  don't 
meet  Trumbull  at  all  unless  he  denies  that. 

In  the  clause  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  upon  this  subject  he  uses  this  language 
toward  Judge  Trumbull.  He  says :  "  He  forges  his  evidence  from  beginning  to 


141 

«nd,  and  by  falsifying  the  record  ho  endeavors  to  bolster  up  his  false  charge." 
Well,  that  is  a  pretty  serious  statement.  Trumbull  forges  his  evidence  from  begin- 
ning to  end.  Now  upon  my  own  authority  I  say  that  it  is  not  true.  What  is  a  for- 
gery ?  Consider  the  evidence  that  Trumbull  has  brought  forward.  When  you  come 
to  read  the  speech,  as  you  will  be  able  to,  examine  whether  the  evidence  is  a  forgery 
from  beginning  to  end.  He  had  the  bill  or  document  in  his  hand  like  that  [holding 
up  *,  paper].  He  says  that  is  a  copy  of  the  Toombs  bill — the  amendment  offered 
by  Toombs.  He  says  that  is  a  copy  of  the  bill  as  it  was  introduced  and  went  into 
Judge  Douglas's  hands.  Now,  does  Judge  Douglas  say  that  is  a  forgery  ?  That  is 
one  thing  Trumbull  brought  forward.  Judge  Douglas  says  he  forged  it  from  be- 
ginning to  end!  That  is  the  k< beginning"  we  will  say.  Docs  Douglas  say  that  is  a 
forgery  ?  Let  him  say  it  to-day  and  we  will  have  a  subsequent  examination  upon 
this  subject.  Trumbull  then  holds  up  another  document  like  this  and  says,  that  is 
:m  exact  copy  of  the  bill  as  it  came  back  in  the  amended  form  out  of  Judge  Doug- 
las's hands.  Does  Judge  Douglas  say  that  is  a  forgery?  Does  he  say  it  in  his 
general  sweeping  charge  ?  Does  he  say  so  now  ?  If  he  does  not,  then  take  this 
Toombs  bill  and  the  bill  in  the  amended  form,  and  it  only  needs  to  compare  them  to 
see  that  the  provision  is  in  the  one  and  not  in  the  other ;  it  leaves  the  inference  in- 
evitable that  it  was  taken  out. 

But  while  I  am  dealing  with  this  question,  let  us  see  what  TnimbuU's  other 
evidence  is.  One  other  piece  of  evidence  I  will  read.  Trumbull  says  there  are  in 
this  original  Toombs  bill  these  words:  "That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the 
same  are  hereby  offered  to  the  said  Convention  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  when 
formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejection  ;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  Convention 
and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  shall 
be  obligatory  upon  the  United  States  and  the  said  State  of  Kansas."  Now,  if  it  is 
said  that  this  is  a  forgery,  we  will  open  the  paper  here  and  see  whether  it  is  or  not. 
Again,  Trumbull  says,  as  he  goes  along,  that  Mr.  Bigler  made  the  following  state- 
ment in  his  place  in  the  Senate,  December  9,  1857 : 

"  I  was  present  when  that  subject  was  discussed  by  Senators  before  the  bill  was 
introduced,  and  the  question  was  raised  and  discussed,  whether  the  Constitution,  when 
formed,  should  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  It  was  held  by  those  most  in- 
telligent on  the  subject,  that  in  view  of  all  the  difficulties  surrounding  that  Territory, 
the  danger  of  any  experiment  at  that  time  of  a  popular  vote,  it  would  be  better 
there  should  be  no  such  provision  in  the  Toombs  bill ;  and  it  was  my  understanding, 
in  all  the  intercourse  I  had,  that  the  Convention  would  make  a  Constitution,  and  send 
it  herf  without  submitting  it  to  the  popular  vote." 

Then  Trumbull  follows  on  :  "In  speaking  of  this  meeting  again  on  the  21st  De- 
cember, 1857  [Congressional  Globe,  same  vol.,  page  113],  Senator  Bigler  said: 

" '  Nothing  was  further  from  my  mind  than  to  allude  to  any  social  or  confiden- 
tial in  .cr  view.  The  meeting  was  not  of  that  character.  Indeed,  it  was  semi-official 
and  called  to  promote  the  public  good.  My  recollection  was  clear  that  I  left  the  con- 
ference under  the  impression  that  it  had  been  deemed  best  to  adopt  measures  to  ad- 
mit Kansas  as  a  State  through  the  agency  of  one  popular  election,  and  tbf  it  for  dele- 
gates to  this  Convention.  This  impression  was  stronger  because  I  thought  the  spirit 
of  the  bill  infringed  upon  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  to  which  I  had  great 
aversion ;  but  with  the  hope  of  accomplishing  a  great  good,  and  as  no  movement  had 
been  made  in  that  direction  in  the  Territory,  I  waived  this  objection,  and  concluded 
to  support  the  measure.  I  have  a  few  items  of  testimony  as  to  the  correctness  of 
these  impressions,  and  with  their  submission  I  shall  be  content  I  have  before  me 
the  bill  reported  by  the  Senator  from  Illinois  on  the  7th  of  March,  1856,  providing 
for  the  admission  of  Kansas  as  a  State,  the  third  section  of  which  reads  as  follows : 

" '  That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby  offered  to  the  said 
Convention  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  re- 
jection ;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  Convention  and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  elec- 
10 


142 

tion  for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  United  States 
and  the  said  State  of  Kansas.' 

"  *  The  bill  read  in  his  place  by  the  Senator  from  Georgia,  on  the  25th  of  June, 
and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Territories,  contained  the  same  section  word  for  word. 
Both  these  bills  were  under  consideration  at  the  conference  referred  to ;  but,  sir, 
when  the  Senator  from  Illinois  reported  the  Toomba  bill  to  the  Senate  with  amend- 
ments, the  next  morning  it  did  not  contain  that  portion  of  the  third  section  which  in- 
dicated to  the  Convention  that  the  Constitution  should  be  approved  by  th^  }»tAi;ple. 
The  words,  *  and  ratified  by  the  people,  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  Consti- 
tution] had  been  stricken  out.' " 

Now  these  things  Trumbull  says  were  stated  by  Bigler  upon  the  floor  of  the  Sen 
ate  on  certain  days,  and  that  they  are  recorded  in  the  Congressional  Globe  on  certain 
pages.  Does  Judge  Douglas  say  this  is  a  forgery  ?  Does  he  say  there  is  no  such 
thing  in  the  Congressional  Globe  ?  What  does  he  mean  when  he  says  Judge  Trum- 
bull forges  his  evidence  from  beginning  to  end  ?  So  again  he  says  in  another  place. 
that  Judge  Douglas,  in  his  speech  December  9,  1857  [Congressional  Globe,  part  1, 
page  J  o],  stated  : 

••  That  during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  I  [Mr.  Douglas]  reported  a  bill  from 
the  Committee  on  Territories,  to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  assemble  and 
form  a  Constitution  for  themselves.  Subsequently  the  Senator  from  Georgia  [Mr. 
Toombs]  brought  forward  a  substitute  for  my  bill,  which,  after  having  been  modified 
by  him  and  myself  in  consultation,  was  passed  by  the  Senate." 

Now  Trumbull  says  this  is  a  quotation  from  a  speech  of  Douglas,  and  is  recorded 
in  the  Congressional  Globe.  Is  it  a  forgery  ?  Is  it  there  or  not  ?  It  may  not  be 
there,  but  I  want  the  Judge  to  take  these  pieces  of  evidence,  and  distinctly  say  they 
are  forgeries  if  he  dare  do  it. 

A  voice — "  Pie  will." 

Mr.  Lincoln — Well,  sir,  you  had  better  not  commit  him.  He  gives  other  quota- 
tions— another  from  Judge  Douglas.  He  says : 

"  I  will  ask  the  Senator  to  show  me  an  intimation,  from  any  one  member  of  the 
Senate,  in  the  whole  debate  on  the  Toombs  bill,  and  in  the  Union,  from  any  quarter, 
that  the  Constitution  was  not  to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  I  will  venture  to  say 
that  on  all  sides  of  the  chamber  it  was  so  understood  at  the  time.  If  the  opponents' 
of  the  bill  had  understood  it  was  not,  they  would  have  made  the  point  on  it ;  and  if 
they  had  made  it,  we  should  certainly  have  yielded  to  it,  and  put  in  the  clause.  Thai 
is  a  discovery  made  since  the  President  found  out  that  it  was  not  safe  to  take  it  foi 
granted  that  that  would  be  done,  which  ought  in  fairness  to  have  been  done." 

Judge  Trumbull  says  Douglas  made  that  speech,  and  it  is  recorded.  Does  Judge 
Douglas  say  it  is  a  forgery,  and  was  not  true  ?  Trumbull  says  somewhere,  and  I 
propose  to  skip  it,  but  it  will  be  found  by  any  one  who  will  read  this  debate,  that  he 
did  distinctly  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  those  who  were  engineering  the  bill,  that  it 
lacked  tL;it  provision,  and  then  he  goes  on  to  give  another  quotation  from  Judge 
Douglas,  where  Judge  Trumbull  uses  this  language : 

"  Judge  Douglas,  however,  on  the  same  day  and  in  the  same  debate,  probably  recol- 
lecting or  being  reminded  of  the  fact  that  I  had  objected  to  the  Toombs  bill  when 
pending  that  it  did  not  provide  for  a  submission  of  the  Constitution  to  the  people, 
made  another  statement,  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  same  volume  of  the  Globe,  page 
22,  in  which  he  says : 

" '  That  the  bill  was  silent  on  this  subject  was  true,  and  my  attention  was  called  to 
that  about  the  time  it  was  passed ;  and  I  took  the  fair  construction  to  be,  that  powers 
not  delegated  were  reserved,  and  that  of  course  the  Constitution  would  be  submitted 
to  the  people.'  m 

"Whether  this  statement  is  consistent  with  the  statement  just  before  made,  that  had 
the  point  been  made  it  would  have  been  yielded  to,  or  that  it  was  a  new  discovery, 
you  .will  determine." 

So  I  sny.     I  do  not  know  whether  Judge  Douglas  will  dispute  this,  and  yet  main- 


143 

tain  his  position  that  TrumbuIFs  evidence  "  was  forged  from  beginning  to  end."  I 
will  remark  that  I  have  not  got  these  Congressional  Globes  with  me.  They  are 
large  books  and  difficult  to  carry  about,  and  if  Judge  Douglas  shall  say  that  on  these 
points  where  Trumbull  has  quoted  from  them,  there  are  no  such  passages  there,  I 
shall  not  be  able  to  prove  they  are  there  upon  this  occasion,  but  I  will  have  another 
chance.  Whenever  he  points  out  the  forgery  and  says,  "  I  declare  that  this  particu- 
lar thing  which  Trumbull  has  uttered  is  not  to  be  found  where  he  says  it  is,"  then 
my  attention  will  be  drawn  to  that,  and  I  will  arm  myself  for  the  contest — stating 
now  that  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  on  earth  that  I  will  find  every  quotation  just 
where  Trumbull  says  it  is.  Then  the  question  is,  how  can  Douglas  call  that  a  for- 
gery  ?  How  can  he  make  out  that  it  is  a  forgery  ?  What  is  a  forgery  ?  It  is  the 
bringing  forward  something  in  writing  or  in  print  purporting  to  be  of  certain  effect 
when  it  is  altogether  untrue.  If  you  come  forward  with  my  note  for  one  hundred 
dollars  when  I  have  never  given  such  a  note,  there  is  a  forgery.  If  you  come  for- 
ward with  a  letter  purporting  to  be  written  by  me  which  I  never  wrote,  there  is  an- 
other forgery.  If  you  produce  any  thing  in  writing  or  in  print  saying  it  is  so  and  so, 
the  document  not  being  genuine,  a  forgery  has  been  committed.  How  do  you  make 
this  a  forgery  when  every  piece  of  the  evidence  is  genuine  ?  If  Judge  Douglas 
does  say  these  documents  and  quotations  are  false  and  forged,  he  has  a  full  right  to 
do  so,  but  until  he  does  it  specifically  we  don't  know  how  to  get  at  him.  If  he  does 
say  they  are  false  and  forged,  I  will  then  look  further  into  it,  and  I  presume  I  can 
procure  the  certificates  of  the  proper  officers  that  they  are  genuine  copies.  I  have 
no  doubt  each  of  these  extracts  will  be  found  exactly  where  Trumbull  says  it  is. 
Then  I  leave  it  to  you  if  Judge  Douglas,  in  making  his  sweeping  charge  that  Judge 
TruinbulPs  evidence  is  forged  from  beginning  to  end,  at  all  meets  the  case — if  that  is 
the  way  to  get  at  the  facts.  I  repeat  again,  if  he  will  point  out  which  one  is  a  for- 
gery, I  will  carefully  examine  it,  and  if  it  proves  that  any  one  of  them  is  really  a 
forgery  it  will  not  be  me  who  will  hold  to  it  any  longer.  I  have  always  wanted  to 
deal  with  every  one  I  meet  candidly  and  honestly.  If  I  have  made  any  assertion 
not  warranted  by  facts,  and  it  is  pointed  out  to  me,  I  will  withdraw  it  cheerfully. 
But  I  do  not  choose  to  see  Judge  Trumbull  calumniated,  and  the  evidence  he  has 
brought  forward  branded  in  general  terms,  "  a  forgery  from  beginning  to  end."  This 
is  not  the  legal  way  of  meeting  a  charge,  and  I  submit  to  all  intelligent  persons,  both 
friends  of  Judge  Douglas  and  of  myself,  whether  it  is. 

The  point  upon  Judge  Douglas  is  this.  The  bill  that  went  into  his  hands  had  the 
provision  in  it  for  a  submission  of  the  Constitution  to  the  people ;  and  I  say  its  lan- 
guage amounts  to  an  express  provision  for  a  submission,  and  that  he  took  the  provis- 
ion out.  He  says  it  was  known  that  the  bill  was  silent  in  this  particular;  but  I  say., 
Judge  Douglas,  it  was  not  silent  wlien  you  got  it.  It  was  vocal  with  the  declaration 
when  you  got  it,  for  a  submission  of  the  Constitution  to  the  people.  And  noAv,  my 
direct  question  to  Judge  Douglas  is,  to  answer  why,  if  he  deemed  the  bill  silent  on 
this  point,  he  found  it  necessary  to  strike  out  those  particular  harmless  words.  If 
he  had  found  the  bill  silent  and  without  this  provision,  he  might  say  what  he  does 
now.  If  he  supposes  it  was  implied  that  the  Constitution  would  be  submitted  to  a 
vote  of  the  people,  how  could  these  two  lines  so  encumber  the  statute  as  to  make  it 
necessary  to  strike  them  out?  How  could  he  infer  that  a  submission  was  still  im- 
plied, after  its  express  provision  had  been  stricken  from  the  bill  ?  I  find  the  bill  vo- 
cal with  the  provision,  while  he  silenced  it.  He  took  it  out,  and  although  he  took  out 
the  other  provision  preventing  a  submission  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  I  ask,  why  did 
you  first  put  it  in  t-  I  ask  him  whether  he  took  the  original  provision  out,  which 
Trumbull  alleges  was  in  the  bill  ?  If  he  admits  that  he  did  take  it,  /  ask  him 
what  he  did  for  it  f  It  looks  to  us  as  if  he  had  altered  the  bill.  If  it  looks  differently 
to  him — if  he  has  a  different  reason  for  his  action  from  the  one  we  assign  him — he  can 
tell  it.  I  insist  upon  knowing  why  he  made  the  bill  silent  upon  that  point  when  it  was 
vocal  before  he  put  his  hands  upon  it. 


144 

I  was  told,  before  ray  last  paragraph,  that  my  time  was  within  three  minutes  of 
being  out.     I  presume  it  is  expired  now.     I  therefore  close. 


SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  SPEECH. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  I  had  supposed  that  we  assembled  here  to-day  for 
the  purpose  of  a  joint  discussion  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself,  upon  the  political 
questions  that  now  agitate  the  whole  country.  The  rule  of  such  discussions  is,  that 
the  opening  speaker  shall  touch  upon  ah1  the  points  he  intends  to  discuss,  in  order  that 
his  opponent,  in  reply,  shall  have  the  opportunity  of  answering  them.  Let  me  ask 
you  what  questions  of  public  policy,  relating  to  the  welfare  of  this  State  or  the  Un- 
ion, has  Mr.  Lincoln  discussed  before  you  ?  Mr.  Lincoln  simply  contented  himself  at 
the  outset  by  saying,  that  he  was  not  in  favor  of  social  and  political  equality  between 
the  white  man  and  the  negro,  and  did  not  desire  the  law  so  changed  as  to  make  the  latter 
voters  or  eligible  to  office.  I  am  glad  that  I  have  at  last  succeeded  in  getting  an  an- 
swer out  of  him  upon  this  question  of  negro  citizenship  and  eligibility  to  office,  for  I 
have  been  trying  to  bring  him  to  the  point  on  it  ever  since  this  canvass  commenced. 

I  will  now  call  your  attention  to  the  question  which  Mr.  Lincoln  has  occupied  his 
entire  time  in  discussing.     He  spent  his  whole  hour  in  retailing  a  charge  made  by 
Senator  Trumbull  against  me.     The  circumstances  out  of  which  that  charge  was  man- 
ufactured, occurred  prior  to  the  last  Presidential  election,  over  two  years  ago.     If 
the  charge  was  true,  why  did  not  Trumbull  make  it  in  1856,  when  I  was  discussing 
the  questions  of  that  day  all  over  this  State  with  Lincoln  and  him,  and  when  it  wa^s 
pertinent  to  the  then  issue?     He  was  then  as  silent  as  the  grave  on  the  subject.     If 
that  charge  was  true,  the  time  to  have  brought  it  forward  was  the  canvass  of  1856, 
the  year  when  the  Toombs  bill  passed  the  Senate.     When  the  facts  were  fresh  in  the 
public  mind,  when  the  Kansas  question  was  the  paramount  question  of  the  day,  and 
when  such  a  charge  would  have  had  a  material  bearing  on  the  election,  why  did 
he  and  Lincoln  remain  silent  then,  knowing  that  such  a  charge  could  be  made  and 
proven  if  true  ?     Were  they  not  false  to  you  and  false  to  the  country  in  going  through 
that  entire  campaign,  concealing  their  knowledge  of  this  enormous  conspiracy  which, 
Mr.  Trumbull  says,  he  then  knew  and  would  not  tell  ?     Mr.  Lincoln  intimates,  in  his 
speech,  a  good  reason  why  Mr.  Trumbull  would  not  tell,  for,  he  says,  that  it  might 
be  true,  as  I  proved  that  it  was  at  Jacksonville,  that  Trumbull  was  also  in  the 
plot,  yet  that  the  fact  of  Trumbull's  being  in  the  plot  would  not  in  any  way  relievo 
me.     He  illustrates  this  argument  by  supposing  himself  on  trial  for  murder,  and  says 
that  it  would  be  no  extenuating  circumstance  if,  on  his  trial,  another  man  was  found 
to  be  a  party  to  his  crime.     Weil,  if  Trumbull  was  in  the  plot,  and  concealed  it  in 
order   to   escape   the  odium   which   would   have  fallen  upon   himself,    I  ask   you 
whether  you  can  believe  him  now  when  he  turns  State's  evidence,  and  avows  his  own 
infamy  in  order  to  implicate  me.     I  am  amazed  that  Mr.  Lincoln  should  now  come 
forward  and  indorse  that  charge,  occupying  his  whole  hour  in  reading  Mr.  Trumbull's 
speech  in  support  of  it.     Why,  I  ask,  does  not  Mr.  Lincoln  make  a  speech  of  his 
own  instead  of  taking  up  his  time  reading  TrumbulFs  speech  at  Alton  ?     I  supposed 
that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  capable  of  making  a  public  speech  on  his  own  account,  or  I 
should  not  hav3  accepted  the  banter  from  him  for  a  joint  discussion.     ["How  about 
the  charges?"]     Do  not  trouble  yourselves,  I  am  going  to  make  my  speech  in  my 
own  way,  and  I  trust,  as  the  Democrats  listened  patiently  and  respectfully  to  Mr. 
Lincoln,  that  his  friends  will  not  interrupt  me  when  I  am  answering  him.     When 
Mr.  Trumbull  returned  from  the  East,  the  first  thing  he  did  when  he  landed  at  Chi- 
cago was  to  make  a  speech  wholly  devoted  to  assaults  upon  my  public  character  and 
public  action.     Up  to  that  time  I  had  never  alluded  to  his  course  in  Congress,  or  to 
him  directly  or  indirectly,  and  hence  his  assaults  upon  me  were  entirely  without  prov- 
ocation and  without  excuse.     Since  then  he  has  been  traveling  from  one  end  of  the 


145 

• 

State  to  the  other  repeating  his  vile  charge.  I  propose  now  to  read  it  in  his  own 
language : 

"  Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  make  the  distinct  charge,  that  there  was  a  preconcerted 
arrangement  and  plot  entered  into  by  the  very  men  who  now  claim  credit  for  oppos- 
ing a  Constitution  formed  and  put  in  force  without  giving  the  people  any  opportunity 
to  pass  upon  it.  This,  my  friends,  is  a  serious  charge,  but  I  charge  it  to-night  that 
th<3  very  men  who  traverse  the  country  under  banners  proclaiming  popular  sover- 
eignty, by  design  concocted  a  bill  on  purpose  to  force  a  Constitution  upon  that  peo- 
pie." 

In  answer  to  some  one  in  the  crowd,  who  asked  him  a  question,  Trumbull  said: 

"And  you  want  to  satisfy  yourself  that  he  was  in  the  plot  to  force  a  Constitution 
upon  that  people?  I  will  satisfy  you.  I  will  crarn  the  truth  down  any  honest  man's 
throat  until  he  cannot  deny  it.  And  to  the  man  who  does  deny  it,  I  will  cram  the 
lie  down  his  throat  till  he  shall  cry  enough. 

"  It  is  preposterous — it  is  the  most  damnable  effrontery  that  man  ever  put  on,  to 
conceal  a  scheme  to  defraud  and  cheat  the  people  out  of  their  rights  and  then  claim 
credit  for  it." 

That  is  the  polite  language  Senator  Trumbull  applied  to  me,  his  colleague,  when 
I  was  two  hundred  miles  off.  Why  did  he  not  speak  out  as  boldly  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  and  cram  the  lie  down  my  throat  when  I  denied  the  charge,  first 
made  by  Bigler,  and  made  him  take  it  back?  You  all  recollect  how  Bigler  assaulted 
me  when  I  was  engaged  in  a  hand-to-hand  fight,  resisting  a  scheme  to  force  a  Con- 
stitution on  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  will.  He  then  attacked  me  with  this 
charge  ;  but  I  proved  its  utter  falsity ;  nailed  the  slander  to  the  counter,  and  made 
him  take  the  back  track.  There  is  not  an  honest  man  in  America  who  read  that 
debate  who  will  pretend  that  the  charge  is  true.  Trumbull  was  then  present  in  the 
Senate,  face  to  face  with  me,  and  why  did  he  not  then  rise  and  repeat  the  charge, 
and  say  he  would  cram  the  lie  down  my  throat  ?  I  tell  you  that  Trumbull  then  knew 
it  was  a  lie.  He  knew  that  Toombs  denied  that  there  ever  was  a  clause  in  the  bill 
he  brought  forward,  calling  for  and  requiring  a  submission  of  the  Kansas  Constitu- 
tion to  the  people.  1  will  tell  you  what  the  facts  of  the  case  were.  I  introduced  a 
bill  to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  Constitution,  and  come  into  the 
Union  as  a  State  whenever  they  should  have  the  requisite  population  for  a  member 
of  Congress,  and  Mr.  Toombs  proposed  a  substitute,  authorizing  the  people  of  Kan- 
sas, with  their  then  population  of  only  25,000,  to  form  a  Constitution,  and  come  in 
at  once.  The  question  at  issue  was,  whether  we  would  admit  Kansas  with  a  popu- 
lation of  25,000,  or,  make  her  wait  until  she  had  the  ratio  entitling  her  to  a  repre- 
sentative in  Congress,  which  was  93,4*20.  That  was  the  point  of  dispute  in  the  Com- 
mittee of  Territories,  to  which  both  my  bill  and  Mr.  Toombs's  substitute  had  been 
referred.  I  was  overruled  by  a  majority  of  the  committee,  my  proposition  rejected, 
;md  Mr.  Toombs's  proposition  to  admit  Kansas  then,  with  her  population  of  25,000, 
adopted.  Accordingly,  a  bill  to  carry  out  his  idea  of  immediate  admission  was  re- 
ported as  a  substitute  for  mine — the  only  points  at  issue  being,  as  I  have  already 
said,  the  question  of  population,  and  the  adoption  of  safeguards  against  frauds  at  the 
election.  Trumbull  knew  this — the  whole  Senate  knew  it — and  hence  he  was  silent 
at  that  time.  He  waited  until  I  became  engaged  in  this  canvass,  and  finding  that  I 
was  showing  up  Lincoln's  Abolitionism  and  negro  equality  doctrines,  that  I  was  driv- 
ing Lincoln  to  the  wall,  and  white  men  would  not  support  his  rank  Abolitionism,  he 
came  back  from  the  East  and  trumped  up  a  system  of  charges  against  me,  hoping 
that  I  would  be  compelled  to  occupy  my  entire  time  in  defending  myself,  so  that  I 
would  not  be  able  to  show  up  the  enormity  of  the  principles  of  the  Abolitionists. 
Now  the  only  reason,  and  the  true  reason,  why  Mr.  Lincoln  has  occupied  the  whole 
of  his  first  hour  in  this  issue  between  Trumbull  and  myself,  is,  to  conceal  from  this 
vast  audience  the  real  questions  which  divide  the  two  great  parties. 

I  am  not  going  to  allow  them  to  waste  much  of  my  time  with  these  personal  mat- 
ters. I  have  lived  in  this  State  twenty-five  years,  most  of  that  time  have  been  in 


146 
•  i 

public  life,  and  my  record  is  open  to  you  all.  If  that  record  is  not  enough  to  vindi- 
cate me  from  these  petty,  malicious  assaults,  I  despise  ever  to  be  elected  to  office  by 
slandering  my  opponents  and  traducing  other  men.  Mr.  Lincoln  asks  you  to  elect 
him  to  the  United  States  Senate  to-day  solely  because  he  and  Trumbull  can  slander 
me.  Has  he  given  any  other  reason  ?  Has  he  avowed  what  he  was  desirous  to  do 
in  Ccagress  on  any  one  question  ?  He  desires  to  ride  into  office,  not  upon  his  own 
merits,  not  upon  the  merits  and  soundness  of  his  principles,  but  upon  his  success  in 
fastening  a  stale  old  slander  upon  me. 

I  wish  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  up  to  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  the  Toombs 
bill,  and  after  its  introduction,  there  had  never  been  an  act  of  Congress  for  the  ad- 
mission of  a  new  State  which  contained  a  clause  requiring  its  Constitution  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people.  The  general  rule  made  the  law  silent  on  the  subject,  taking  it 
for  granted  that  the  people  would  demand  and  compel  a  popular  vote  on  the  ratifica- 
tion of  their  Constitution.  Such  was  the  general  rule  under  Washington,  Jefferson, 
Madison,  Jackson  and  Polk,  under  the  Whig  Presidents  and  the  Democratic  Presi- 
dents from  the  beginning  of  the  Government  down,  and  nobody  dreamed  that  an  ef- 
fort would  ever  be  made  to  abuse  the  power  thus  confided  to  the  people  of  a  Terri- 
tory. For  this  reason  our  attention  was  not  called  to  the  fact  of  whether  there  was 
or  was  not  a  clause  in  the  Toombs  bill  compelling  submission,  but  it  was  taken  for 
granted  that  the  Constitution  would  be  submitted  to  the  people  whether  the  law  com- 
pelled it  or  not. 

Now,  I  will  read  from  the  report  by  me  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Terri- 
tories at  the  time  I  reported  back  the  Toombs  substitute  to  the  Senate.  It  contained 
several  things  which  I  had  voted  against  in  committee,  but  had  been  overruled  by  a 
majority  of  the  members,  and  it  was  my  duty  as  chairman  of  the  committee  to  re- 
port the  bill  back  as  it  was  agreed  upon  by  them.  The  main  point  upon  which  I 
had  been  overruled  was  the  question  of  population.  In  my  report  accompanying  the 
Toombs  bill,  I  said  : 

*  In  the  opinion  of  your  Committee,  whenever  a  Constitution  shall  be  formed  in 
any  Territory,  preparatory  to  its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  justice,  the 
genius  of  our  institutions,  the  whole  theory  of  our  republican  system,  imperatively 
demand  that  the  voice  of  the  people  shall  be  fairly  expressed,  and  their  will  embodied 
in  that  fundamental  law,  without  fraud,  or  violence,  or  intimidation,  or  any  other 
improper  or  unlawful  influence,  and  subject  to  no  other  restrictions  than  those  im- 
posed by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

There  you  find  that  we  took  it  for  granted  that  the  Constitution  was  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people,  whether  the  bill  was  silent  on  the  subject  or  not.  Suppose  I 
had  reported  it  so,  following  the  example  of  Washington,  Adams,  Jefferson,  Madi- 
son Monroe,  Adams,  Jackson,  Van  Buren,  Harrison,  Tyler,  Polk,  Taylor,  Fillmore, 
anC  Pierce,  would  that  fact  have  been  evidence  of  a  conspiracy  to  force  a  Constitu- 
tion upon  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  will  ?  If  the  charge  which  Mr.  Lin- 
coln makes  be  true  against  me,  it  is  true  against  Zachary  Taylor,  Millard  Fillmore, 
and  every  Whig  President,  as  well  as  every  Democratic  I3resident,  and  against 
Henry  Clay,  who,  in  the  Senate  or  House,  for  forty  years  advocated  bills  similar  to 
the  one  I  reported,  no  one  of  them  containing  a  clause  compelling  the  submission  of 
the  Constitution  to  the  people.  Are  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Trumbull  prepared  tc 
charge  upon  all  those  eminent  men  from  the  beginning  of  the  Government  down  to 
the  present  day,  that  the  absence  of  a  provision  compelling  submission,  in  the  various 
bills  passed  by  them,  authorizing  the  people  of  Territories  to  form  State  Constitu- 
tions, is  evidence  of  a  corrupt  design  on  their  part  to  force  a  Constitution  upon  an 
unwilling  people  ? 

I  ask  you  to  reflect  on  these  things,  for  I  tell  you  that  there  is  a  conspiracy  to 
carry  this  election  for  the  Black  Republicans  by  slander,  and  not  by, fair  means.  Mr. 
Lincoln's  speech  this  day  is  conclusive  evidence  of  the  fact.  He  has  devoted  his 
entire  time  to  an  issue  between  Mr.  Trumbull  and  myself,  and  has  not  uttered  a 
word  about  the  politics  of  the  day.  Are  you  going  to  elect  Mr.  Trumbull's  col 


147 

league  upon  an  issue  between  Mr.  Trumbull  and  me  ?  I  thought  I  was  running 
against  Abraham  Lincoln,  that  he  claimed  to  be  my  opponent,  had  challenged  me  to 
a  discussion  of  the  public  questions  of  the  day  with  him,  and  was  discussing  these 
questions  with  me ;  but  it  turns  out  that  his  only  hope  is  to  ride  into  office  on  Trum- 
bull's  back,  who  will  carry  him  by  falsehood. 

Permit  me  to  pursue  this  subject  a  little  further.  An  examination  of  the  record 
proves  that  Truinbull's  charge — that  the  Toombs  bill  originally  contained  a  clause 
requiring  the  Constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  people— is  false.  The  printed 
copy  of  the  bill  which  Mr.  Lincoln  held  up  before  you,  and  which  he  pretends  con- 
tains such  a  clause,  merely  contains  a  clause  requiring  a  submission  of  the  land 
grant,  and  there  is  no  clause  in  it  requiring  a  submission  of  the  Constitution.  Mr. 
Lincoln  cannot  find  such  a  clause  in  it.  My  report  shows  that  we  took  it  for  granted 
that  the  people  would  require  a  submission  of  the  Constitution,  and  secure  it  for 
themselves.  There  never  was  a  clause  in  the  Toombs  bill  requiring  the  Constitu- 
tion to  be  submitted ;  Trumbull  knew  it  at  the  time,  and  his  speech  made  on  the  night 
of  its  passage  discloses  the  fact  that  he  knew  it  was  silent  on  the  subject ;  Lincoln 
pretends,  and  tells  you  that  Trumbull  has  not  changed  his  evidence  in  support  of  his 
charge  since  he  made  his  speech  in  Chicago.  Let  us  see.  The  Chicago  Time* 
took  up  Trumbull's  Chicago  speech,  compared  it  with  the  official  records  of  Con- 
gress, and  proved  that  speech  to  be  false  in  its  charge  that  the  original  Toombs  bill 
required  a  submission  of  the  Constitution  to  the  people.  Trumbull  then  saw  that 
he  was  caught — and  his  falsehood  exposed — and  he  went  to  Alton,  and,  under  the 
very  walls  of  the  penitentiary,  made  a  new  speech,  in  which  he  predicated  his  as- 
sault upon  me  in  the  allegation  that  I  had  caused  to  be  voted  into  the  Toombs  bill  a 
clause  which  prohibited  the  Convention  from  submitting  the  Constitution  to  the  peo- 
ple, and  quoted  what  he  pretended  was  the  clause.  Now,  has  not  Mr.  Trumbull  en- 
tirely changed  the  evidence  on  which  he  bases  his  charge  ?  The  clause  which  he  quoted 
in  his  Alton  speech  (which  he  has  published  and  circulated  broadcast  over  the  State) 
as  having  been  put  into  the  Toombs  bill  by  me,  is  in  the  following  words : 

"  And  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in 
said  Territory*" 

Trumbull  says  that  the  object  of  that  amendment  was  to  prevent  the  Convention 
from  submitting  the  Constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people. 

Now,  I  will  show  you  that  when  Trumbull  made  that  statement  at  Altoii  he  knew 
it  to  be  untrue.  I  read  from  Trumbull's  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  Toombs  bill 
on  the  night  of  its  passage.  He  then  said : 

"  There  is  nothing  said  in  this  bill,  so  far  as  I  have  discovered,  about  submitting 
the  Constitution,  which  is  to  be  formed,  to  the  people  for  their  sanction  or  rejec- 
tion. Perhaps  the  Convention  will  have  the  right  to  submit  it,  if  it  should  think 
proper,  but  it  is  certainly  not  compelled  to  do  so  according  to  the  provisions  of 
the  bill." 

Thus  you  see  that  Trumbull,  when  the  bill  was  on  its  passage  in  the  Senate,  said 
that  it  was  silent  on  the  subject  of  submission,  and  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  bill 
one  way  or  the  other  on  it.  In  his  Alton  speech  he  says  there  was  a  clause  in  the  bill 
preventing  its  submission  to  the  people,  and  that  I  had  it  voted  in  as  an  amendment. 
I'll  us  I  convict  him  of  falsehood  and  slander  by  quoting  from  him  on  the  passage  of 
the  Toombs  bill  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  his  own  speech,  made  on  the 
night  of  July  2,  185G,  and  reported  in  the  Congressional  Globe  for  the  first  session 
of  the  thirty -fourth  Congress,  vol.  33.  What  will  you  think  of  a  man  who  makes  a 
false  charge  and  falsifies  the  records  to  prove  it?  I  will  now  show  you  that  the  clause 
which  Trumbull  says  was  put  in  the  bill  on  my  motion,  was  never  put  in  at  all  by 
me,  but  was  stricken  out.  on  my  motion  arid  another  substituted  in  its  place.  I  call 
your  attention  to  the  same  volume  of  the  Congressional  Globe  to  which  I  have  al- 
ready referred,  page  795,  where  you  will  find  the  following  report  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  Senate : 

u  Mr.  Douglas — I  have  an  amendment  to  offer  from  the  Committee  on  Territories. 


148 

On  page  8,  section  11,  strike  out  the  words  '  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act, 
no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory,'  and  insert  the  amendment  which  I 
hold  in  my  hand." 

You  see  from  this  that  I  moved  to  strike  out  the  very  words  that  Trumbull  saya 
I  put  in.  The  Committee  on  Territories  overruled  me  in  Committee  and  put  the 
clause  in,  but  as  soon  as  I  got  the  bill  back  into  the  Senate,  I  moved  to  strike  it  out 
and  put  another  clause  in  its  place.  On  the  same  page  you  will  find  that  my  amend- 
ment was  agreed  to  unanimously.  I  then  offered  another  amendment,  recognizing 
the  right  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  under  the  Toombs  bill,  to  order  just  such  elections 
as  they  saw  proper.  You  can  find  it  on  page  706  of  the  same  volume.  I  will 
read  it : 

"  Mr.  Douglas — I  have  another  amendment  to  offer  from  the  Committee,  to  fol- 
low the  amendment  which  has  been  adopted.  The  bill  reads  now:  *  And  until  the 
complete  execution  of  this  act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory/ 
It  has  been  suggested  that  it  should  be  modified  in  this  way :  *  And  to  avoid  conflict 
in  the  complete  execution  of  this  act,  all  other  elections  in  said  Territory  are  hereby 
postponed  until  such  time  as  said  Convention  shall  appoint,'  so  that  they  can  appoint 
the  day  in  the  event  that  there  should  be  a  failure  to  conic  into  the  Union." 

The  amendment  was  unanimously  agreed  to — clearly  and  distinctly  recognizing 
the  right  of  the  Convention  to  order  just  as  many  elections  as  they  saw  proper  in 
the  execution  of  the  act.  Trumbull  concealed  in  his  Alton  speech  the  fact  that  the 
clause  he  quoted  had  been  stricken  out  in  my  motion,  and  the  other  fact  that  this 
other  clause  was  put  in  the  bill  on  my  motion,  and  made  the  false  charge  that  I -in- 
corporated into  the  bill  a  clause  preventing  submission,  in  the  face  of  the  fact,  that, 
on  my  motion,  the  bill  was  so  amended  before  it  passed  as  to  recognize  in  express 
words  the  right  and  duty  of  submission. 

On  this  record  that  I  have  produced  before  you,  I  repeat  rny  charge  that  Trum- 
bull did  falsify  the  public  records  of  the  country,  in  order  to  make  his  charge  against 
me,  and  I  tell  Mr.  Abraham  Lincoln  that  if  lie  will  examine  these  records,  lie  will 
then  know  that  what  I  state  is  true.  Mr.  Lincoln  has  this  day  indorsed  Mr.  Trum- 
bull's  veracity  after  he  had  my  word  for  it  that  that  veracity  was  proved  to  be  vio- 
lated and  forfeited  by  the  public  records.  It  will  not  do  for  Mr.  Lincoln  in  parad- 
ing his  calumnies  against  me,  to  put  Mr.  Trumbull  between  him  and  the  odium  and 
responsibility  which  justly  attaches  to  such  calumnies.  I  tell  him  that  I  am  as 
ready  to  prosecute  the  indorser  as  the  maker  of  a  forged  note.  I  regret  the  neces- 
sity of  occupying  my  time  with  these  petty  personal  matters.  It  is  unbecoming  the 
dignity  of  a  canvass  for  an  office  of  the  character  for  which  we  are  candidates. 
When  I  commenced  the  canvass  at  Chicago,  I  spoke  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  terms  of 
kindness  as  an  old  friend — I  said  that  he  was  a  good  citizen,  of  unblemished  charac- 
ter,, against  whom  I  had  nothing  to  say.  I  repeated  these  complimentary  remarks 
about  him  in  my  successive  speeches,  until  he  became  the  indorser  for  these  and 
other  slanders  against  me.  If  there  is  any  thing  personally  disagreeable,  uncourteous 
or  disreputable  in  these  personalities,  the  sole  responsibility  rests  on  Mr.  Lincoln, 
Mr.  Trumbull  and  their  backers. 

I  will  show  you  another  charge  made  by  Mr.  Lincoln  against  me,  as  an  offset  to 
his  determination  of  willingness  to  take  back  any  thing  that  is  incorrect,  and  to  cor- 
rect any  false  statement  he  may  have  made.  He  has  several  times  charged  that  the 
Supreme  Court,  President  Pierce,  President  Buchanan,  and  myself,  at  the  time 
I  introduced  the  Nebraska  bill  in  January,  1854,  at  Washington,  entered  into  a  con- 
spiracy to  establish  slavery  all  over  this  country.  I  branded  this  charge  as  a  false- 
hood, and  then  he  repeated  it,  asked  me  to  analyze  its  truth  and  answer  it.  I  told 
him,  "  Mr.  Lincoln,  I  know  what  you  are  after — you  want  to  occupy  my  time  in 
personal  matters,  to  prevent  me  from  showing  up  the  revolutionary  principles  which 
the  Abolition  party — whose  candidate  you  are — have  proclaimed  to  the  world." 
But  he  asked  me  to  analyze  his  proof,  and  I  did  so.  I  called  his  attention  to  the 
fact  that  at  the  time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  introduced,  there  was  no  such  case  as  the 


149 

Dred  Scott  case  pending  yi  the  Supreme  Court,  nor  was  it  brought  there  for  years 
afterward,  and  hence  that  it  was  impossible  there  could  have  been  any  such  con- 
spiracy between  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  other  parties  involved. 
I  proved  by  the  record  that  the  charge  was  false,  and  what  did  he  answer  ?  Did  he 
take  it  back  like  an  honest  man  and  say  that  he  had  been  mistaken  ?  No ;  he  re- 
peated the  charge,  and  said,  that  although  there  was  nc  such  case  pending  that  year, 
there  was  an  understanding  between  the  Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scolt  and  the 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  other  parties  involved,  that  the  case  should  be 
brought  up.  I  then  demanded  to  know  who  these  Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott 
were.  He  could  not  or  would  not  tell ;  he  did  not  know.  In  truth,  there  were  no 
Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  on  the  face  of  the  land.  Dred  Scott  was  owned 
at  that  time  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chaffee,  an  Abolition  member  of  Congress  from 
Springfield,  Massachusetts,  and  his  wife ;  and  Mr.  Lincoln  ought  to  have  known  that 
Dred  Scott  was  so  owned,  for  the  reason  that  as  soon  as  the  decision  was  announced 
by  the  court,  Dr.  Chaffee  and  his  wife  executed  a  deed  emancipating  him,  and  put 
that  deed  on  record.  It  was  a  matter  of  public  record,  therefore,  that  at  the  time 
the  case  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court,  Dred  Scott  was  owned  by  an  Abolition 
member  of  Congress,  a  friend  of  Lincoln's,  and  a  leading  man  of  his  party,  while 
the  defense  was  conducted  by  Abolition  lawyers — and  thus  the  Abolitionists  man- 
aged both  sides  of  the  case.  I  have  exposed  these  facts  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  yet  he 
will  not  withdraw  his  charge  of  conspiracy.  I  now  submit  to  you  whether  you  can 
place  any  confidence  in  a  man  who  continues  to  make  a  charge  when  its  utter  falsity 
is  proven  by  the  public  records.  I  will  state  another  fact  to  show  how  utterly  reck- 
less and  unscrupulous  this  charge  against  the  Supreme  Court,  President  Pierce, 
President  Buchanan  and  myself  is.  Lincoln  says  that  President  Buchanan  was 
in  the  conspiracy  at  Washington  in  the  winter  of  1854,  when  the  Nebraska  bill 
was  introduced.  The  history  of  this  country  shows  that  James  Buchanan  was  at 
that  time  representing  this  country  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  Great  Britain,  with 
distinguished  ability  and  usefulness,  that  he  had  not  been  in  the  United  States  for 
nearly  a  year  previous,  and  that  he  did  not  return  until  about  three  years  after.  Yet 
Mr.  Lincoln  keeps  repeating  this  charge  of  conspiracy  against  Mr.  Buchanan  when 
the  public  records  prove  it  to  be  untrue.  Having  proved  it  to  be  false  as  far  as  the 
Supreme  Court  and  President  Buchanan  are  concerned,  I  drop  it,  leaving  the  pub- 
lic to  say  whether  I,  by  myself,  without  their  concurrence,  could  have  gone  into  a 
conspiracy  with  them.  My  friends,  you  see  that  the  object  clearly  is  to  conduct  the 
canvass  on  personal  matters,  and  hunt  me  down  with  charges  that  are  proven  to  be 
false  by  the  public  records  of  the  country.  I  am  willing  to  throw  open  my  whole 
public  and  private  life  to  the  inspection  of  any  man,  or  all  men  who  desire  to  inves- 
tigate it.  Having  resided  among  you  twenty-five  years,  Curing  nearly  the  whole  of 
which  time  a  public  man,  exposed  to  more  assaults,  perhaps  more  abuse  than  any 
man  living  of  my  age,  or  who  ever  did  live,  and  having  survived  it  all  and  still  com- 
mtnded  your  confidence,  I  am  willing  to  trust  to  your  knowledge  of  me  and  my  pub- 
lic conduct  without  making  any  more  defense  against  these  assaults. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  came  here  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  leading  political 
topics  which  now  agitate  the  country.  I  have  no  charges  to  make  against  Mr.  Lin- 
coln, none  against  Mr.  Trumbull,  and  none  against  any  man  who  is  a  candidate,  ex- 
cept in  repelling  their  assaults  upon  me.  If  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  man  of  bad  character, 
I  leave  you  to  find  it  out ;  if  his  votes  in  the  past  are  not  satisfactory,  I  leave  others 
to  ascertain  the  fact ;  if  his  course  on  the  Mexican  war  was  not  in  accordance  with 
your  notions  of  patriotism  and  fidelity  to  our  own  country  as  against  a  public  enemy, 
I  leave  you  to  ascertain  the  fact.  I  have  no  assaults  to  make  upon  him,  except  to 
trace  his  course  on  the  questions  that  now  divide  the  country  and  engross  so  much  of 
the  people's  attention. 

You  know  that  prior  to  1854  this  country  was  divided  into  two  great  political  par- 
ties, one;  the  Whig,  the  other  the  Democratic.  I,  as  a  Democrat  for  twenty  years 
prior  to  that  time,  had  been  in  public  discussions  in  this  State  as  an  advocate  of  Dem- 


150 

ocratic  principles,  and  I  can  appeal  with  confidence  to  every  old  line  Whig  within 
the  hearing  of  my  voice  to  bear  testimony  that  during  all  that  period  I  fought  you 
Whigs  like  a  man  on  every  question  that  separated  the  two  parties.  I  had  the  high- 
est respect  for  Henry  Clay  as  a  gallant  party  leader,  as  an  eminent  statesman,  and  as 
one  of  the  bright  ornaments  of  this  country ;  but  I  conscientiously  believed  that  the 
Democratic  party  was  right  on  the  questions  which  separated  the  Democrats  from 
the  Whigs.  The  man  does  not  live  who  can  say  that  I  ever  personally  assailed 
Henry  Clay  or  Daniel  Webster,  or  any  one  of  the  leaders  of  that  great  party,  whilst 
I  combated  with  all  my  energy  the  measures  they  advocated.  What  did  we  differ 
about  in  those  days?  Did  Whigs  and  Democrats  differ  about  this  slavery  question? 
On  the  contrary,  did  we  not,  in  1850,  unite  to  a  man  in  favor  of  that  system  of  Com- 
promise measures  which  Mr.  Clay  introduced,  ^Webster  defended,  Cass  supported, 
and  Fillmore  approved  and  made  the  law  of  the  land  by  his  signature.  While  we 
agreed  on  those  Compromise  measures,  we  differed  about  a  bank,  the  tariff,  distribu- 
tion, the  specie  circular,  the  sub-treasury,  and  other  questions  of  that  description. 
Now,  let  me  ask  you,  which  one  of  those  questions  on  which  Whigs  and  Democrats 
then  differed  now  remains  to  divide  the  two  great  parties  ?  Every  one  of  those  ques- 
tions which  divided  Whigs  and  Democrats  has  passed  away,  the  country  has  outgrown 
them,  they  have  passed  into  history.  Hence  it  is  immaterial  whether  you  were  right 
or  I  was  right  on  the  bank,  the  sub-treasury,  and  other  'questions,  because  they  no 
longer  continue  living  issues.  What,  then,  has  taken  the  place  of  those  questions 
about  which  we  once  differed  ?  The  slavery  question  has  now  become  the  leading 
and  controlling  issue ;  that  question  on  which  you  and  I  agreed,  on  which  the  Whigs 
and  Democrats  united,  has  now  become  the  leading  issue  between  the  National  De- 
mocracy on  the  one  side,  and  the  Republican  or  Abolition  party  on  the  other. 

Just  recollect  for  a  moment  the  memorable  contest  of  1850,  when  this  country  was 
agitated  from  its  center  to  its  circumference  by  the  slavery  agitation.  All  eyes  in 
this  nation  were  then  turned  to  the  three  great  lights  that  survived  the  days  of  the 
Revolution.  They  looked  to  Clay,  then  in  retirement  at  Ashland,  and  to  Webster 
and  Cass  in  the  United  States  Senate.  Clay  had  retired  to  Ashland,  having,  as  he 
supposed,  performed  his  mission  on  earth,  and  was  preparing  himself  for  a  better 
sphere  of  existence  in  another  world.  In  that  retirement  he  heard  the  discordant, 
harsh  and  grating  sounds  of  sectional  strife  and  disunion,  and  he  aroused  and  came 
forth  and  resumed  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  that  great  theater  of  his  great  deeds.  From 
the  moment  that  Clay  arrived  among  us  he  became  the  leader  of  all  the  Union  men, 
whether  Whigs  or  Democrats.  For  nine  months  we  each  assembled,  each  day,  in  the 
council-chamber,  Clay  in  the  chair,  with  Cass  upon  his  right  hand  and  Webster  upon 
liis  left,  and  the  Democrats  and  Whigs  gathered  around,  forgetting  differences,  and 
only  animated  by  one  common,  patriotic  sentiment  to  devise  means  and  measures  by 
which  we  could  defeat  the  mad  and  revolutionary  scheme  of  the  Northern  Abolition- 
its  and  Southern  disunionists.  We  did  devise  those  means.  Clay  brought  them  for- 
ward, Cass  advocated  them,  the  Union  Democrats  and  Union  Whigs  voted  for  them, 
Fillmore  signed  them,  and  they  gave  peace  and  quiet  to  the  country.  Those  Com- 
promise measures  of  1850  were  founded  upon  the  great  fundamental  principle  that 
the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  ought  to  be  left  free  to  form  and  regu- 
late their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Federal 
Constitution.  I  will  ask  every  old  line  Democrat  and  every  old  line  Whig  within  the 
hearing  of  my  voice,  if  I  have  not  truly  stated  the  issues  as  they  then  presented 
themselves  to  the  country.  You  recollect  that  the  Abolitionists  raised  a  howl  of  in- 
dignation, and  cried  for  vengeance  and  the  destruction  of  Democrats  and  Whigs  both, 
who  supported  those  Compromise  measures  of  1850.  When  I  returned  home  to 
Chicago,  I  found  the  citizens  inflamed  and  infuriated  against  the  authors  of  those 
great  measures.  Being  the  only  man  in  that  city  who  was  held  responsible  for  af- 
firmative votes  on  all  those  measures,  1  came  forward  and  addressed  the  assembled 
inhabitants,  defended  each  and  every  one  of  Clay's  Compromise  measures  as  they 
passed  the  Senate  and  the  House,  and  were  approved  by  President  Fillmore.  Fre- 


151 

vious  to  that  time,  the  city  council  had  passed  resolutions  nullifying  the  act  of  Con- 
gress, and  instructing  the  police  to  withhold  all  assistance  from  its  execution  ;  but 
the  people  of  Chicago  listened  to  my  defense,  and  like  candid,  frank,  conscientious 
men,  when' they  became  convinced  that  they  had  done  an  injustice  to  Clay,  Webster, 
Cass,  and  all  of  us  who  had  supported  those  measures,  they  repealed  their  nullifying 
resolutions  and  declared  that  the  laws  should  be  executed  and  the  supremacy  of  the 
Constitution  maintained.  Let  it  always  be  recorded  in  history  to  the  immortal  honor 
of  the  people  of  Chicago,  that  they  returned  to  their  duty  when  they  found  that  they 
were  wrong,  and  did  justice  to  those  whom  they  had  blamed  and  abused  unjustly. 
When  the  Legislature  of  this  State  assembled  that  year,  they  proceeded  to  pass  res- 
olutions approving  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850.  When  the  Whig  party  as- 
sembled in  1852  at  Baltimore  in  National  Convention  for  the  last  time,  to  nominate 
Scott  for  the  Presidency,  they  adopted  as  a  part  of  their  platform  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850  as  the  cardinal  plank  upon  which  every  Whig  would  stand  and 
by  which  he  would  regulate  his  future  conduct.  When  the  Democratic  party  assem- 
bled at  the  same  place  one  month  after,  to  nominate  General  Pierce,  we  adopted  the 
same  platform  so  far  as  those  Compromise  measures  were  concerned,  agreeing  that 
we  would  stand  by  those  glorious  measures  as  a  cardinal  article  in  the  Democratic 
faith.  Thus  you  see  that  in  1852  all  the  old  Whigs  and  all  the  old  Democrats  stood 
on  a  common  plank  so  far  as  this  slavery  question  was  concerned,  differing  on  other 
questions. 

Now,  let  me  ask,  how  is  it  that  since  that  time  so  many  of  you  Whigs  have  wan- 
dered from  the  true  path  marked  out  by  Clay  and  carried  out  broad  and  wide  by  the 
great  Webster?  How  is  it  that  so  many  old  line  Democrats  have  abandoned  the 
old  faith  of  their  party,  and  joined  with  Abolitionism  and  Freesoilism.  to  overturn 
the  platform  of  the  old  Democrats,  and  the  platform  of  the  old  Whigs  ?  You  can- 
not deny  that  since  1854  there  has  been  a  great  revolution  on  this  one  question. 
How  has  it  been  brought  about  ?  I  answer,  that  no  sooner  was  the  sod  grown  green 
over  he  grave  of  the  immortal  Clay,  no  sooner  was  the  rose  planted  on  the  tomb  of 
the  god-like  Webster,  than  many  of  the  leaders  of  the  Whig  party,  such  as  Seward, 
of  New  York,  and  his  followers,  led  off  and  attempted  to  abolitionize  the  Whig 
party,  and  transfer  all  your  old  Whigs,  bound  hand  and  foot,  into  the  Abolition  camp. 
Seizing  hold  of  the  temporary  excitement  produced  in  this  country  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Nebraska  bill,  the  disappointed  politicians  in  the  Democratic  party  united 
with  the  disappointed  politicians  in  the  Whig  party,  and  endeavored  to  ibrm  a  new 
party  composed  of  all  the  Abolitionists,  of  abolitionized  Democrats  and  abolitionized 
Whigs,  banded  together  in  an  Abolition  platform. 

And  who  led  that  crusade  against  National  principles  in  this  State?  I  answer, 
Abraham  Lincoln  on  behalf  of  the  Whigs,  and  Lyman  Trumbull  on  behalf  of  the 
Democrats,  formed  a  scheme  by  which  they  would  abolitionize  the  two  great  paries 
in  this  State  on  condition  that  Lincoln  Should  be  sent  to  the  United  States  Senate  in 
place  of  General  Shields,  and  that  Trumbull  should  go  to  Congress  from  the  Belle- 
ville District,  until  I  would  be  accommodating  enough  either  to  die  or  resign  for  his 
benefit,  and  then  he  was  to  go  to  the  Senate  in  my  place.  You  all  remember  that 
during  the  year  1854,  these  two  worthy  gentlemen,  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Trumbull, 
one  an  old  line  Whig  and  the  other  an  old  line  Democrat,  were  hunting  in  partner- 
ship to  elect  a  Legislature  against  the  Democratic  party.  I  canvassed  the  State  that 
year  from  the  time  I  returned  home  until  the  election  came  off,  and  spoke  in  every 
county  that  I  could  reach  during  that  period.  In  the  northern  part  of  the  State  I 
found  Lincoln's  ally,  in  the  person  of  FRED  DOUGLASS,  THE  NEGRO,  preaching  Abo- 
lition doctrines,  while  Lincoln  was  discussing  the  same  principles  down  here,  and 
Trumbull,  a  little  farther  down,  was  advocating  the  election  of  members  to  the  Legis- 
lature who  would  act  in  concert  with  Lincoln's  and  Fred  Douglass's  friends.  I  wit- 
nessed an  effort  made  at  Chicago  by  Lincoln's  then  associates,  and  now  supporters, 
to  put  Fred  Douglass,  the  negro,  on  the  stand  at  a  Democratic  meeting,  to  reply  to 
the  illustrious  General  Cass,  when  he  was  addressing  the  people  there.  They  had 


152 

the  same  negro  hunting  me  down,  and  they  now  have  a  negro  traversing  the  northern 
counties  of  the  State,  and  speaking  in  behalf  of  Lincoln.  Lincoln  knows  that  when 
we  were  at  Freeport  in  joint  discussion,  there  was  a  distinguished  colored  friend  of 
his  there  then  who  was  on  the  stump  for  him,  and  who  made  a  speech  there  the  night 
before  we  spoke,  and  another  the  night  after,  a  short  distance  from  Freeport,  in  favor 
of  Lincoln,  and  in  order  to  show  how  much  interest  the  colored  brethren  felt  in  the 
success  of  their  brother  Abe,  I  have  with  me  here,  and  would  read  it  if  it  would  not 
occupy  too  much  of  my  time,  a  speech  made  by  Fred  Douglass  in  Poughkeepsie,  N. 
Y.,  9.  short  time  since,  to  a  large  Convention,  in  which  he  conjures  all  the  friends  of 
negro  equality  and  negro  citizenship  to  rally  as  one  man  around  Abraham  Lincoln, 
the  perfect  embodiment  of  their  principles,  and  by  all  means  to  defeat  Stephen  A. 
Douglas.  Thus  you  find  that  this  Republican  party  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
State  had  colored  gentlemen  for  their  advocates  in  1854,  in  company  with  Lincoln 
and  Trumbull,  as  they  have  now.  When,  in  October,  1854, 1  went  down  to  Spring- 
field to  attend  the  State  Fair,  I  found  the  leaders  of  this  party  all  assembled  together 
under  the  title  of  an  anti-Nebraska  meeting.  It  was  Black  Republicans  up  north, 
and  anti-Nebraska  at  Springfield.  I  found  Lovejoy,  a  high-priest  of  Abolitionism, 
and  Lincoln,  one  of  the  leaders  who  was  towing  the  old  line  Whigs  into  the  Abo- 
lition camp,  and  Trumbull,  Sidney  Breese,  and  Governor  Reynolds,  all  making 
speeches  against  the  Democratic  party  and  myself,  at  the  same  place  and  in  the  same 
cause.  The  same  men  who  are  now  fighting  the  Democratic  party  and  the  regular 
Democratic  nominees  in  this  State,  were  fighting  us  then.  They  did  not  then  ac- 
knowledge that  they  had  become  Abolitionists,  and  many  of  them  deny  it  now. 
Breese,  Dougherty  and  Reynolds  were  then  fighting  the  Democracy  under  the  title 
of  anti-Nebraska  men,  and  now  they  are  fighting  the  Democracy  under  the  pretense 
that  they  are  simon  pure  Democrats,  saying  that  they  are  authorized  to  have  every 
office-holder  in  Illinois  beheaded  who  prefers  the  election  of  Douglas  to  that  of  Lin- 
coln, or  the  success  of  the  Democratic  ticket  in  preference  to  the  Abolition  ticket  for 
members  of  Congress,  State  officers,  members  of  the  Legislature,  or  any  office  in  the 
State.  They  canvassed  the  State  against  us  in  1854,  as  they  are  doing  now,  owning 
different  names  and  different  principles  in  different  localities,  but  having  a  common 
object  in  view,  viz  :  The  defeat  of  all  men  holding  national  principles  in  opposition 
to  this  sectional  Abolition  party.  They  carried  the  Legislature  in  1854,  and  when 
it  assembled  in  Springfield  they  proceeded  to  elect  a  United  States  Senator,  all  voting 
for  Lincoln  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  which  exceptions  prevented  them  from  quite 
electing  him.  And  why  should  they  not  elect  him  ?  Had  not  Trumbull  agreed  that 
Lincoln  should  have  Shields's  place?  Had  not  the  Abolitionists  agreed  to  it?  Was 
it  not  the  solemn  compact,  the  condition  on  which  Lincoln  agreed  to  abolitionize  the 
old  Whigs  that  he  should  be  Senator  ?  Still,  Trumbull  having  control  of  a  few  abo- 
htionized  Democrats,  would  not  allow  them  all  to  vote  for  Lincoln  on  any  one  ballot, 
and  thus  kept  him  for  some  time  within  one  or  two  votes  of  an  election,  until  he  wor- 
ried out  Lincoln's  friends,  and  compelled  them  to  drop  him  and  elect  Trumbull  in 
violation  of  the  bargain.  I  desire  to  read  you  a  piece  of  testimony  in  confirmation 
of  the  notoriously  public  facts  which  I  have  stated  to  you.  Col.  James  H.  Matheny, 
of  Springfield,  is,  and  for  twenty  years  has  been,  the  confidential  personal  and  polit- 
ical friend  and  manager  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Matheny  is  this  very  day  the  candidate  of 
the  Republican  or  Abolition  party  for  Congress  against  the  gallant  Major  Thos.  L. 
Harris,  in  the  Springfield  District,  and  is  making  speeches  for  Lincoln  and  against 
me.  I  will  read  you  the  testimony  of  Matheny  about  this  bargain  between  Lincoln 
and  Trumbull  when  they  undertook  to  abolitionize  Whigs  and  Democrats  only  four 
years  ago.  Matheny  being  mad  at  Trumbull  for  having  played  a  Yankee  trick  on 
Lincoln,  exposed  the  bargain  in  a  public  speech  two  years  ago,  and  I  will  read  the 
published  report  of  that  speech,  the  correctness  of  which  Mr.  Lincoln  will  not  deny  : 
"The  Whigs,  Abolitionists,  Know  Nothings,  and  renegade  Democrats,  made  a 
solemn  compact  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  this  State  against  the  Democracy  on  this 
plan:  1st.  That  they  would  all  combine  and  elect  Mr.  Trumbull  to  Congress,  and 


153 

thereby  carry  his  district  for  tin-  Legislature,  in  order  to  throw  all  the  strength  that 
could  be  obtained  into  that  body  against  the  Democrats.  2d.  That  when  the  Legis- 
ture  should  meet,  the  officers  of  that  body,  such  as  speaker,  clerks,  door-keepers,  etc., 
would  be  given  to  the  Abolitionists ;  and  3d.  That  the  Whigs  were  to  have  the 
United  States  Senator.  That,  accordingly,  in  good  faith  Trumbull  was  elected  to 
Congress,  and  his  district  carried  for  the  Legislature,  and  when  it  convened  the  Abo- 
litionists got  all  the  officers  of  that  body,  and  thus  far  the  'bond*  was  fairly  executed. 
The  Whigs,  on  their  part,  demanded  the  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln  to  the  United 
States  Senate,  that  the  bond  might  bs  fulfilled,  the  other  parties  to  the  contract  hav- 
ing already  secured  to  themselves  all  that  was  called  for.  But,  in  the  most  perfidious 
manner,  they  refused  to  elect  Mr.  Lincoln ;  and  the  mean,  low-lived,  sneaking  Trum- 
bull succeeded  by  pleading  all  that  was  required  by  any  party,  in  thrusting  Lincoln 
aside  and  foisting  himselfj  an  excrescence  from  the  rotten  bowels  of  the  Democracy, 
into  the  United  States  Senate ;  and  thus  it  has  ever  been,  that  an  honest  man  makes 
a  bad  bargain  when  he  conspires  or  contracts  with  rogues." 

Lincoln's  confidential  friend,  Matheny,  thought  that  Lincoln  made  a  bad  bargain 
when  he  conspired  with  such  rogues  as  Trumbull  and  the  Abolitionists.  I  would  like 
to  know  whether  Lincoln  had  as  high  opinion  of  Trumbull's  veracity  when  the  latter 
agreed  to  support  him  for  the  Senate,  and  then  cheated  him  as  he  does  now,  when 
Trumbull  comes  forward  and  makes  charges  against  me.  You  could  not  then  prove 
Trumbull  an  honest  man  either  by  Lincoln,  by  Matheny,  or  by  any  of  Lincoln's 
friends.  They  charged  every  where  that  Trumbull  had  cheated  them  out  of  the  bar- 
gain, and  Lincoln  found  sure  enough  that  it  was  a  bad  bargain  to  contract  and  con- 
spire with  rogues. 

And  now  I  will  explain  to  you  what  has  been  a  mystery  all  over  the  State  and 
Union,  the  reason  why  Lincoln  was  nominated  for  the  United  States  Senate  by  the 
Black  Republican  Convention.  You  know  it  has  never  been  usual  for  any  party,  or 
any  Convention,  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  United  States  Senator.  Probably  this 
was  the  first  time  that  such  a  thing  was  ever  done.  The  Black  Republican  Conven- 
tion had  not  been  called  for  that  purpose,  but  to  nominate  a  State  ticket,  and 
every  man  was  surprised  and  many  disgusted  when  Lincoln  was  nominated. 
Archie  Williams  thought  he  was  entitled  to  it,  Browning  knew  that  he  deserved 
it,  Wehtworth  was  certain  that  he  would  get  it,  Peck  had  hopes,  Judd  felt  sure  that 
he  was  the  man,  and  Palmer  had  claims  and  had  made  arrangements  to  secure  it ; 
but  to  their  utter  amazement,  Lincoln  was  nominated  by  the  Convention,  and  not 
only  that,  but  he  received  the  nomination  unanimously,  by  a  resolution  declaring  that 
Abraham  Lincoln  was  "the  first,  last,  and  only  choice"  of  the  Republican  party 
How  did  this  occur  ?  Why,  because  they  could  not  get  Lincoln's  friends  to  make 
another  bargain  with  "rogues,"  unless  the  whole  party  would  come  up  as  one  man 
and  pledge  their  honor  that  they  would  stand  by  Lincoln  first,  last  and  all  the  time, 
and  that  he  should  not  be  cheated  by  Lovejoy  this  time,  as  he  was  by  Trumbull 
before.  Thus,  by  passing  this  resolution,  the  Abolitionists  are  all  for  him,  Lovejoy 
and  Farnsworth  are  canvassing  for  him,  Giddings  is  ready  to  come  here  in  his 
behalf,  and  the  negro  speakers  are  already  on  the  stump  for  him,  and  he  is  sure  not 
to  be  cheated  this  time.  He  would  not  go  into  the  arrangement  until  he  got  their 
bond  for  it,  and  Trumbull  is  compelled  now  to  take  the  stump,  get  up  false  charges 
against  me,  and  travel  all  over  the  State  to  try  and  elect  Lincoln,  in  order  to  keep 
Lincoln's  friends  quiet  about  the  bargain  in  which  Trumbull  cheated  them  four  years 
ago.  You  see,  now,  why  it  is  that  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  are  so  mighty  fond  of 
each  other.  They  have  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  break  me  down  by  these 
assaults  on  my  public  character,  in  order  to  draw  my  attention  from  a  fair  exposure 
of  the  mode  in  which  they  attempted  to  abolitionize  the  old  Whig  and  the  old  Dem- 
ocratic parties  and  lead  them  captive  into  the  Abolition  camp.  Do  you  not  all 
remember  that  Lincoln  went  around  here  four  years  ago  making  speeches  to  you, 
and  telling  that  you  should  all  go  for  the  Abolition  ticket,  and  swearing  that  he  was 
as  good  a  Whig  as  he  ever  was ;  and  that  Trumbull  went  all  over  the  State  making 


154 

pledges  to  the  old  Democrats,  and  trying  to  coax  them  into  the  Abolition  camp, 
swearing  by  his  Maker,  with  the  uplifted  hand,  that  he  was  still  a  Democrat,  always 
intended  to  be,  and  that  never  would  he  desert  the  Democratic  party.  He  got  your 
votes  to  elect  an  Abolition  Legislature,  which  passed  Abolition  resolutions,  attempted 
to  pass  Abolition  laws,  and  sustained  Abolitionists  for  office,  State  and  National. 
Now,  the  same  game  is  attempted  to  be  played  over  again.  Then  Lincoln  and  Trum- 
bull made  captives  of  the  old  Whigs  and  old  Democrats  and  carried  them  into  the 
Abolition  camp,  where  Father  Giddings,  the  high-priest  of  Abolitionism,  received 
and  christened  them  in  the  dark  cause  just  as  fast  as  they  were  brought  in.  Gid- 
dings found  the  converts  so  numerous  that  he  had  to  have  assistance,  and  he  sent  for 
John  P.  Hale,  N.  P.  Banks,  Chase,  and  other  Abolitionists,  and  they  came  on,  and 
with  Lovejoy  and  Fred  Douglass,  the  negro,  helped  to  baptize  these  new  converts 
as  Lincoln,  Trumbull,  Breese,  Reynolds,  and  Dougherty  could  capture  them  and 
bring  them  within  the  Abolition  clutch.  Gentlemen,  they  are  now  around  making 
the  same  kind  of  speeches.  Trumbull  was  down  in  Monroe  county  the  other  day 
assailing  me,  and  making  a  speech  in  favor  of  Lincoln,  and  I  will  show  you  under 
what  notice  his  meeting  was  called  You  see  these  people  are  Black  Republicans  or 
Abolitionists  up  north,  while  at  Springfield  to-day,  they  dare  not  call  their  Conven- 
tion "Republican,"  but  are  obliged  to  say  "a  Convention  of  all  men  opposed  to  the 
Democratic  party,"  and  in  Monroe  county  and  lower  Egypt  Trumbull  advertises  their 
meetings  as  follows : 

A  meeting  of  the  Free  Democracy  will  take  place  at  Waterloo,  on  Monday,  September  12th 
inst,  whereat  Hon.  Lyman  Trumbull,  Hon.  John  Baker,  and  others,  will  address  the  people  upon 
the  different  political  topics  of  the  day.  Members  of  all  parties  are  cordially  invited  to  be  pres- 
ent, and  hear  and  determine  for  themselves. 

September  9,  1858.  THE  FREE  DEMOCRACY. 

Did  you  ever  before  hear  of  this  new  party  called  the  "  Free  Democracy  ?" 
What  object  have  these  Black  Republicans  in  changing  their  name  in  every 
county  ?  They  have  one  name  in  the  north,  another  in  the  center,  and  another  in 
the  South.  When  I  used  to  practice  law  before  my  distinguished  judicial  friend, 
whom  I  recognize  in  the  crowd  before  me,  if  a  man  was  charged  with  horse-stealing 
and  the  proof  showed  that  he  went  by  one  name  in  Stephenson  county,  another 
in  Sangamon,  a  third  in  Monroe,  and  a  fourth  in  Randolph,  we  thought  that  the 
fact  of  his  changing  his  name  so  often  to  avoid  detection,  was  pretty  strong  evi- 
dence of  his  guilt.  I  would  like  to  know  why  it  is  that  this  great  Freesoil 
Abolition  party  is  not  willing  to  avow  the  same  name  in  all  parts  of  the  State  ?  If 
this  party  believes  that  its  course  is  just,  why  does  it  not  avow  the  same  principles  in 
the  North,  and  in  the  South,  in  the  East  and  in  the  West,  wherever  the  American 
flag  waves  over  American  soil  ? 

A  voice — "The  party  does  not  call  itself  Black  Republican  in  the  North." 
Mr.  Douglas — Sir  if  you,will  get  a  copy  of  the  paper  published  at  Waukegan,  fifty 
miles  from  Chicago,  which  advocates  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  has  his  name 
flying  at  its  mast-head,  you  will  find  that  it  declares  that  "this  paper  is  devoted  to 
the  cause"  of  Slack  Republicanism.  I  had  a  copy  of  it  and  intended  to  bring  it  down 
here  into  Egypt  to  let  you  see  what  name  the  party  rallied  under  up  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  State,  and  to  convince  you  that  their  principles  are  as  different  in  the 
two  sections  of  the  State  as  is  their  name.  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  mislaid  it  and 
have  not  got  it  here.  Their  principles  in  the  north  are  jet-black,  in  the  center  they 
are  in  color  a  decent  mulatto,  and  in  lower  Egypt  they  are  almost  white.  Why,  I 
admired  many  of  the  white  sentiments  contained  in  Lincoln's  speech  at  Jonesboro, 
and  could  not  help  but  contrast  them  with  the  speeches  of  the  same  distinguished 
orator  made  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State.  Down  here  he  denies  that  the  Black 
Republican  party  is  opposed  to  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States,  under  any 
circumstances,  and  says  that  they  are  willing  to  allow  the  people  of  each  State,  when 
it  wants  to  come  into  the  Union,  to  do  just  as  it  pleases  on  the  question  of  slavery. 
.  In  the  North,  you  find  Lovejoy,  their  candidate  for  Congress  in  the  Bloomington 


155 

District,  Famsworth,  their  candidate  in  the  Chicago  District,  and  Washburne,  their 
candidate  in  the  Galena  District,  all  declaring  that  never  will  they  consent,  under  any 
circumstances,  to  admit  another  slave  State,  even  if  the  people  want  it.  Thus,  while 
they  avow  one  set  of  principles  up  there,  they  avow  another  and  entirely  different  set 
down  here.  And  here  let  me  recall  to  Mr.  Lincoln  the  scriptural  quotation  which 
he  has  applied  to  the  Federal  Government,  that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand,  and  ask  him  how  does  he  expect  this  Abolition  party  to  stand  when  in  one- 
half  of  the  Suite  it  advocates  a  set  of  principles  which  it  has  repudiated  in  the  other 
half? 

I  am  told  that  I  have  but  eight  minutes  more.  I  would  like  to  talk  to  you  an 
hour  and  a  half  longer,  but  I  will  make  the  best  use  I  can  of  the  remaining  eight 
minutes.  Mr.  Lincoln  said  in  his  first  remarks  that  he  was  not  in  favor  of  the  social 
uiul  political  equality  of  the  negro  with  the  white  man.  Every  where  up  north  he 
hst;  declared  that  he  was  not  in  favor  of  the  social  and  political  equality  of  the 
negro,  but  he  would  not  say  whether  or  not  he  was  opposed  to  negroes  voting  and 
negro  citizenship.  I  want  to  know  whether  he  is  for  or  against  negro  citizenship? 
lie  declared  his  utter  opposition  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  advanced  as  a  reason 
that  the  court  had  decided  that  it  was  not  possible  for  a  negro  to  be  a  citizen  under 
the  Constitution. of  the  United  States.  If  he  is  opposed  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision 
for  that  reason,  he  must  be  in  favor  of  centering  the  right  and  privilege  of  citizenship 
upon  the  negro !  I  have  been  trying  to  get  an  answer  from  him  on  that  point,  but 
have  never  yet  obtained  one,  and  I  will  show  you  why.  In  every  speech  he  made 
in  the  north  he  quoted  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  prove  that  all  men  were 
created,  equal,  and  insisted  that  the  phrase  "all  men,"  included  the  negro  as  well 
as  the  white  man,  and  that,  the  equality  rested  upon  Divine  law.  Here  is  what  he 
said  on  that  point : 

"1  should  like  to  know  if,  taking  this  old  Declaration  of  Independence,  which 
declares  that  all  men  are  equal  upon  principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it,  where 
will  it  stop?  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  may  not  another  say  it 
does  not  mean  some  other  man  ?  If  that  declaration  is  not  the  truth,  let  us  get  the 
statute  hook  in  which  we  find  it  and  bear  it  out." 

Lincoln  maintains  there  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  asserts  that  the  negro 
is  equal  to  the  white  man,  and  that  under  Divine  law,  and  if  he  believes  so  it  was 
rational  for  him  to  advocate  negro  citizenship,  which,  when  allowed,  puts  the  negro 
on  tin  equality  under  the  law.  I  say  to  you  in  all  frankness,  gentlemen,  that  in  my 
opinion  a  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  cannot  be,  and  ought  not  to  be,  under  the  Constitu- 
tion o-f  the  United  States.  I  will  not  even  qualify  my  opinion  to  meet  the  declara- 
tion of  one  of  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  "  that  a 
negro  descended  from  African  parents,  who  was  imported  into  this  country  as  a  slave 
is  not  a  citizen,  and  cannot  be."  I  say  that  this  Government  was  established  on  the 
white  basis.  It  was  made  by  white  men,  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their 
posterity  forever,  and  never  should  be  administered  by  any  except  white  men.  I 
declare  that  a  negro  ought  not  to  be  a  citizen,  whether  his  parents  were  imported 
into  this  country  as  slaves  or  not,  or  whether  or  not  he  was  born  here.  It  does  not 
depend  upon  the  place  a  negro's  parents  were  born,  or  whether  they  were  slaves  or 
not,  but  upon  the  fact  that  he  is  a  negro,  belonging  to  a  race  incapable  of  self-gov- 
ernment, and  for  that  reason  ought  not  to  be  on  an  equality  with  white  men. 

My  friends,  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  not  time  to  pursue  this  argument  further,  as  I 
might  have  done  but  for  the  fact  that  Mr.  Lincoln  compelled  me  to  occupy  a  portion 
of  my  turn}  in  repelling  those  gross  slanders  and  falsehoods  that  Trumbull  has  invent- 
ed against  me  and  put  in  circulation.  In  conclusion,  let  me  ask  you  why  should 
this  Government  be  divided  by  a  geographical  line — arraying  all  men  North  in  one 
great  hostile,  party  against  all  men  South  ?  Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you,  in  his  speech  at 
Springfield,  "that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand;  that  this  Government, 
divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  cannot  endure  permanently  ;  that  they  must  either 
be  ali  free  or  all  slave ;  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other."  Why  cannot  this  Govern- 


156 

merit  endure  divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it?  When  this 
Government  was  established  by  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Jay,  Hamilton, 
Franklin,  and  the  other  sages  and  patriots  of  that  day,  it  was  composed  of  free 
States  and  slave  States,  bound  together  by  one  common  Constitution.  We  have 
existed  and  prospered  from  that  day  to  this  thus  divided,  and  have  increased  with  a 
rapidity  never  before  equaled  in  wealth,  the  extension  of  territory,  and  all  the  ele- 
ments of  power  and  greatness,  until  we  have  become  the  first  nation  on  the  face  of 
the  globe.  Why  can  we  not  thus  continue  to  prosper  ?  We  can  if  we  will  live  up 
to  and  execute  the  Government  upon  those  principles  upon  which  our  fathers  estab- 
lished it.  During  the  whole  period  of  our  existence  Divine  Providence  has  smiled 
upon  us,  and  showered  upon  our  nation  richer  and  more  abundant  blessings  than 
have  ever  been  conferred  upon  any  other. 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  REJOINDER. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS  :  It  follows  as  a  matter  of  course  that  a  half-hour  answer  to  a 
speech  of  an  hour  and  a  half  can  be  but  a  very  hurried  one.  I  shall  only  be  able 
to  touch  upon  a  few  of  the  points  suggested  by  Judge  Douglas,  and  give  them  a  brief 
attention,  while  I  shall  have  to  totally  omit  others  for  the  want  of  time. 

Judge  Douglas  has  said  to  you  that  he  has  not  been  able  to  get  from  me  an  answer 
to  the  question  whether  I  am  in  favor  of  negro  citizenship.  So  far  as  I  know,  the 
Judge  never  asked  me  the  question  before.  He  shall  have  no  occasion  to  ever  ask 
it  again,  for  I  tell  him  very  frankly  that  I  am  not  in  favor  of  negro  citizenship. 
This  furnishes  me  an  occasion  for  saying  a  few  words  upon  the  subject.  I  mentioned 
in  a  certain  speech  of  mine  which  has  been  printed,  that  the  Supreme  Court  had 
decided  that  a  negro  could  not  possibly  be  made  a  citizen,  and  without  saying  what 
was  my  ground  of  complaint  in  regard  to  that,  or  whether  I  had  any  ground  of  com- 
plaint, Judge  Douglas  has  from  that  thing  manufactured  nearly  every  thing  that  he 
ever  says  about  my  disposition  to  produce  an  equality  between  the  negroes  and  the 
white  people.  If  any  one  will  read  my  speech,  he  will  find  I  mentioned  that  as  one 
of  the  points  decided  in  the  course  of  the  Supreme  Court  opinions,  but  I  did  not 
state  what  objection  I  had  to  it.  But  Judge  Douglas  tells  the  people  what  my 
objection  was  when  I  did  not  tell  them  myself.  Now  my  opinion  is  that  the  different 
States  have  the  power  to  make  a  negro  a  citizen  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  if  they  choose.  The  Dred  Scott  decision  decides  that  they  have  not  that 
power.  If  the  State  of  Illinois  had  that  power  I  should  be  opposed  to  the  exercise 
of  it.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say  about  it. 

Judge  Douglas  has  told  me  that  lie  heard  my  speeches  north  and  my  speeches 
south — that  he  had  heard  me  at  Ottawa  and  at  Freeport  in  the  north,  and  recently 
at  Jonesboro  in  the  south,  and  there  was  a  very  different  cast  of  sentiment  in  the 
speeches  made  at  the  different  points.  I  will  not  charge  upon  Judge  Douglas  that 
he  willfully  misrepresents  me,  but  I  call  upon  every  lair-minded  man  to  take  these 
speeches  and  read  them,  and  I  dare  him  to  point  out  any  difference  ttetween  my  speeches 
north  and  south.  While  I'  am  here  perhaps  I  ought  to  say  a  word,  if  1  have  the 
time,  in  regard  to  the  latter  portion  of  the  Judge's  speech,  which  was  a  sort  of  decla- 
mation in  reference  to  my  having  said  I  entertained  the  belief  that  this  Government 
would  not  endure,  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  have  said  so,  and  I  did  not  say  it, 
without  what  seemed  to  me  to  be  good  reasons.  It  perhaps  would  require  more  time 
than  I  have  now  to  set  forth  these  reasons  in  detail ;  but  let  me  ask  you  a  few  ques- 
tions. Have  we  ever  had  any  peace  on  this  slavery  question  ?  When  are  we  to 
have  peace  upon  it  if  it  is  kept  in  the  position  it  now  occupies?  How  are  we  ever 
to  -have  peace  upon  it?  That  is  an  important  question.  To  be  sure,  if  we  will  all 
stop  and  allow  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  to  march  on  in  their  present  career 
until  they  plant  the  institution  all  over  the  nation,  here  and  wherever  else  our  flag 


157 

waves,  and  we  acquiesce  in  it,  there  will  be  peace.  But  let  me  ask  Judge  Douglas 
how  he  is  going  to  get  the  people  to  do  that  ?  They  have  been  wrangling  over  this 
question  for  at  least  forty  years.  This  was  the  cause  of  the  agitation  resulting  in 
the  Missouri  Compromise — this  produced  the  troubles  at  the  annexation  of  Texas, 
in  the  acquisition  of  the  territory  acquired  in  the  Mexican  war.  Again,  this  was 
the  trouble  which  was  quieted  by  the  Compromise  of  1850,  when  it  was  settled 
"forever"  as  both  the  great  political  parties  declared  in  their  National  C<.:r??ntions. 
That  "forever"  turned  out  to  be  just  four  years,  when  Judge  Douglas*  nimself 
reopened  it.  When  is  it  likely  to  come  to  an  end  ?  He  introduced  the  Nebraska 
bill  in  1854  to  put  another  end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  He  promised  that  it 
would  finish  it  all  up  immediately,  arid  he  has  never  made  a  speech  since  until  he 
got  into  a  quarrel  with  the  President  about  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  in  which  he 
has  not  declared  that  we  are  just  at  the  end  of  the  slavery  agitation.  But  in  one 
speech,  I  think  last  winter,  he  did  say  that  he  didn't  quite  see  when  the  end  of  the 
slavery  agitation  would  come.  Now  he  tells  us  again  that  it  is  all  over,  and 
the  people  of  Kansas  have  voted  down  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  How  is  it 
over  ?  That  was  only  one  of  the  attempts  at  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agi- 
tation— one  of  these  "final  settlements."  Is  Kansas  in  the  Union?  Has  she 
formed  a  Constitution  that  she  is  likely  to  come  in  under?  Is  not  the  slavery 
agitation  still  an  open  question  in  that  Territory?  Has  the  voting  down  of  that 
Constitution  put  an  end  to  all  the  trouble  ?  Is  that  more  likely  to  settle  it  than 
every  one  of  these  previous  attempts  to  settle  the  slavery  agitation  ?  Now,  at  this 
day  in  the  history  of  the  world  we  can  no  more  foretell  where  the  end  of  this  slavery 
agitation  will  be  than  we  can  see  the  end  of  the  world  itself.  The  Nebraska-Kan- 
sas bill  was  introduced  four  years  and  a  half  ago,  and  if  the  agitation  is  ever  to 
come  to  an  end,  we  may  say  we  are  four  years  and  a  half  nearer  the  end.  So,  too, 
we  can  say  we  are  four  years  and  a  half  nearer  the  end  of  the  world;  and  we  can 
just  as  clearly  see  the  end  of  the  world  as  we  can  see  the  end  of  this  agitation.  The 
Kansas  settlement  did  not  conclude  it.  If  Kansas  should  sink  to-day,  and  leave  a  great 
vacant  space  in  the  earth's  surface,  this  vexed  question  would  still  be  among  us.  I 
say,  then,  there  is  no  way  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation  amongst  us  but 
to  put  it  back  upon  the  basis  where  our  fathers  placed  it,  no  way  but  to  keep  it  out  of 
our  new  Territories — to  restrict  it  forever  to  the  old  States  where  it  now  exists. 
Then  the  public  mind  will  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinc- 
tion. That  is  one  way  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation. 

The  other  way  is  for  us  to  surrender  and  let  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  have 
their  way  and  plant  slavery  over  all  the  States — cease  speaking  of  it  as  in  any  way 
a  wrong — regard  slavery  as  one  of  the  common  matters  of  property,  and  speak  of 
negroes  as  we  do  of  our  horses  and  cattle.  But  while  it  drives  on  in  its  state  of  pro- 
gress as  it  is  now  driving,  and  as  it  has  driven  for  the  last  five  years,  I  have  ven- 
tured the  opinion,  and  I  say  to-day,  that  we  will  have  no  end  to  the  slavery  agitation 
until  it  takes  one  turn  or  the  other.  I  do  not  mean  that  when  it  takes  a  turn  toward 
ultimate  extinction  it  will  be  in  a  day,  nor  in  a  year,  nor  in  two  years.  I  do  not 
suppose  that  in  the  most  peaceful  way  ultimate  extinction  would  occur  in  less  than  a 
hundred  years  at  least ;  but  that  it  will  occur  in  the  best  way  for  both  races,  in  (rod's 
own  good  time,  I  have  no  doubt.  But,  my  friends,  I  have  used  up  more  of  my 
time  than  I  intended  on  this  point. 

Now,  in  regard  to  this  matter  about  Trumbull  and  myself  having  made  a 
bargain  to  sell  out  the  entire  Whig  and  Democratic  parties  in  1854 — Judge 
Douglas  brings  forward  no  evidence  to  sustain  his  charge,  except  the  speech 
Matheny  is  said  to  have  made  in  1856,  in  which  he  told  a  cock-and-bull  story  of  that 
sort,  upon  the  same  moral  principles  that  Judge  Douglas  tells  it  here  to-day.  This 
is  the  simple  truth.  I  do  not  care  greatly  for  the  story,  but  this  is  the  truth  of  it, 
and  I  have  twice  told  Judge  Douglas  to  his  face,  that  from  beginning  to  end  there 
is  not  one  word  of  truth  in  it.  I  have  called  upon  him  for  the  proof,  and  he  does 
not  at  all  meet  me  as  Trumbull  met  him  upon  that  of  which  we  were  just  talking, 


158 

by  producing  the  record.  He  didn't  bring  the  record,  because  there  was  no 
record  for  him  to  bring.  When  he  asks  if  I  am  ready  to  indorse  Trumbull's  verac- 
ity after  he  has  broken  a  bargain  with  me,  I  reply  that  if  Trumbull  had  broken  a 
bargain  with  me,  I  would  not  be  likely  to  indorse  his  veracity ;  but  I  am  ready  to 
indorse  his  veracity  because  neither  in  that  thing,  nor  in  any  other,  in  all  the 
years  that  I  have  known  Lyman  Trumbull,  have  I  known  him  to  fail  of  his  word 
or  tell  a  falsehood,  large  or  small.  It  is  for  that  reason  that  I  indorse  Lyman 
Trumbull. 

Mr.  James  Brown  (Douglas  Post  Master) — "What  does  Ford's  history  say 
it  bout  him  ?" 

Mr.  Lincoln — Some  gentleman  asks  me  what  Ford's  History  says  about  him.  My 
own  recollection  is,  that  Ford  speaks  of  Trumbull  in  very  disrespectful  terms  in  sev- 
eral portions  of  his  book,  and  that  he  talks  a  great  deal  worse  of  Judge  Douglas.  I 
refer  you,  sir,  to  the  history  for  examination. 

Judge  Douglas  complains,  at  considerable  length,  about  a  disposition  on  the  part 
of  Trumbull  and  myself  to  attack  him  personally.  I  want  to  attend  to  that  sugges- 
tion a  moment.  I  don't  want  to  be  unjustly  accused  of  dealing  illiberally  or  unfairly 
with  an  adversary,  either  in  court,  or  in  a  political  canvass,  or  any  where  else.  I 
would  despise  myself  if  I  supposed  myself  ready  to  deal  less  liberally  with  an  ad- 
versary than  I  was  willing  to  be  treated  myself.  Judge  Douglas,  in  a  general 
way^.  without  putting  it  in  a  direct  shape,  revives  the  old  charge  against  me  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Mexican  war.  He  does  not  take  the  responsibility  of  putting  it  in  a 
very  definite  form,  but  makes  a  general  reference  to  it.  That  charge  is  more  than 
ten  years  old.  He  complains  of  Trumbull  and  myself,  because  he  says  we  bring 
charges  against  him  one  or  two  years  old.  He  knows,  too,  that  in  regard  to  the 
Mexican  war  story,  the  more  respectable  papers  of  his  own  party  throughout  the 
State  have  been  compelled  to  take  it  back  and  acknowledge  that  it  was  a  lie. 

Here  Mr.  Lincoln  turned  to  the  crowd  on  the  platform,  and  selecting  Hon.  Orlan- 
do B.  Ficklin,  led  him  forward  and  said  : 

I  do  not  mean  to  do  any  thing  with  Mr.  Ficklin,  except  to  present  his  face  and  tell 
you  that  he  personally  knows  it  to  be  a  lie !  He  was  a  member  of  Congress  at  the 
only  time  I  was  in  Congress,  and  he  [Ficklin]  knows  that  whenever  there  was  an 
attempt  to  procure  a  vote  of  mine  which  would  indorse  the  origin  and  justice  of  the 
war,  I  refused  to  give  such  indorsement,  and  voted  against  it ;  but  I  never  voted 
against  the  supplies  for  the  army,  and  he  knows,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  that 
whenever  a  dollar  was  asked  by  way  of  compensation  or  otherwise,  for  the  benefit 
of  the  soldiers,  /  gave  all  the  votes  that  Ficklin  or  Douglas  did,  and  perhaps  more. 

Mr.  Ficklin — My  friends,  I  wish  to  say  this  in  reference  to  the  matter.  Mr.  Lin- 
coln and  myself  are  just  as  good  personal  friends  as  Judge  Douglas  and  myself. 
In  reference  to  this  Mexican  war,  my  recollection  is  that  when  Ashmun's  resolu- 
tion [amendment]  was  offered  by  Mr.  Ashmun  of  Massachusetts,  in  which  he  de- 
clared that  the  Mexican  war  was  unnecessarily  and  unconstitutionally  commenced 
by  the  President — my  recollection  is  that  Mr.  Lincoln  voted  for  that  resolution. 

Mr.  Lincoln — That  is  the  truth.  Now  you  all  remember  that  was  a  resolu- 
tion censuring  the  President  for  the  manner  in  which  the  war  was  begun.  You 
know  they  have  charged  that  I  voted  against  the  supplies,  by  which  I  starved 
the  soldiers  who  were  out  fighting  the  battles  of  their  country.  I  say  that  Ficklin 
knows  it  is  false.  When  that  charge  was  brought  forward  by  the  Chicago  Times, 
the  Springfield  Register  [Douglas  organ]  reminded  the  Times  that  the  charge 
really  applied  to  John  Henry ;  and  I  do  know  that  John  Henry  is  now  making 
speeches  and  fiercely  battling  for  Judge  Douglas.  If  the  Judge  now  says  that  he 
offers  this  as  a  sort  of  a  set-off  to  what  I  said  to-day  in  reference  to  Trumbull's 
charge,  then  I  remind  him  that  he  made  this  charge  before  I  said  a  word  about 
Trumbull's.  He  brought  this  forward  at  Ottawa,  the  first  time  we  met  face  to  face ; 
and  in  the  opening  speech  that  Judge  Douglas  made,  he  attacked  me  ir  regard  to  a 


159 

matter  ten  years  old.  Isn't  he  a  pretty  man  to  be  whining  about  people  making 
charges  against  him  only  two  years  old ! 

The  Judge  thinks  it  is  altogether  wrong  that  I  should  have  dwelt  upon  this  charge 
of  Trumbull's  at  all.  I  gave  the  apology  for  doing  so  in  my  opening  speech.  Per- 
haps it  didn't  fix  your  attention.  1  said  that  when  Judge  Douglas  was  speaking  at 
places  where  I  spoke  on  the  succeeding  day,  he  used  very  harsh  language  about  this 
charge.  Two  or  three  times  afterward  I  said  I  had  confidence  in  Judge  Trumbull's 
veracity  and  intelligence ;  and  my  own  opinion  was,  from  what  I  knew  of  the  char- 
acter of  Judge  Trumbull,  that  he  would  vindicate  his  position,  and  prove  whatever 
he  had  stated  to  be  true.  This  I  repeated  two  or  three  times  ;  and  then  I  dropped 
it,  without  saying  any  thing  more  on  the  subject  for  weeks — perhaps  a  month.  I 
passed  it  by  without  noticing  it  at  all  till  I  found  at  Jacksonville,  Judge  Douglas,  in 
the  plenitude  of  his  power,  is  not  willing  to  answer  Trumbull  and  let  me  alone ;  but 
he  comes  out  there  and  uses  this  language :  "  He  should  not  hereafter  occupy  his 
time  in  refuting  such  charges  made  by  Trumbull,  but  that  Lincoln,  having  indorsed 
the  character  of  Trumbull  for  veracity,  he  should  hold  him  [Lincoln]  responsible 
for  the  slanders."  What  was  Lincoln  to  do  ?  Did  he  not  do  right,  when  he  had  the 
fit  opportunity  of  meeting  Judge  Douglas  here,  to  tell  him  he  was  ready  for  the  re- 
sponsibility ?  I  ask  a  candid  audience  whether  in  doing  thus  Judge  Douglas  was  not 
the  assailant  rather  than  I  ?  Here  I  meet  him  face  to  lace  and  say  I  am  ready  to 
take  the  responsibility  so  far  as  it  rests  on  me. 

Having  done  so,  I  ask  the  attention  of  this  audience  to  the  question  whether  I 
have  succeeded  in  sustaining  the  charge,  and  whether  Judge  Douglas  has  at  all  suc- 
ceeded in  rebutting  it  ?  You  all  heard  me  call  upon  him  to  say  which  of  these  pieces 
of  evidence  was  a  forgery?  Does  he  say  that  what  I  present  here  as  a  copy  of  the 
original  Toombs  bill  is  a  forgery  ?  Does  he  say  that  what  I  present  as  a  copy  of 
the  bill  reported  by  himself  is  a  forgery  ?  Or  what  is  presented  as  a  transcript  from 
the  Globe,  of  the  quotations  from  Bigler's  speech,  is  a  forgery  ?  Does  he  say  the 
quotations  from  his  own  speech  are  forgeries  ?  Does  he  say  this  transcript  from 
Trumbull's  speech  is  a  forgery?  ["  He  didn't  deny  one  of  them."]  1  would  then 
like  to  know  how  it  comes  about,,  "that  when  each  piece  of  a  story  is  true,  the  whole 
story  turns  out  false  ?  I  take  it  these  people  have  some  sense ;  they  see  plainly 
that  Judge  Douglas  is  playing  cuttle-fish,  a  small  species  of  fish  that  has  no  mode  of 
defending  itself  when  pursued  except  by  throwing  out  a  black  fluid,  which  makes 
the  water  so  dark  the  enemy  cannot  see  it,  and  thus  it  escapes.  Ain't  the  Judge 
playing  the  cuttle-fish  ? 

Now  I  would  ask  very  special  attention  to  the  consideration  of  Judge  Doug- 
las's speech  at  Jacksonville ;  and  when  you  shall  read  his  speech  of  to-day,  I  ask 
you  to  watch  closely  and  see  which  of  these  pieces  of  testimony,  every  one  of 
which  he  says  is  &  forgery,  he  has  shown  to  be  such.  Not  one  of  them  has  Jte 
tkown  to  be  a  forgery.  Then  I  ask  the  original  question,  if  each  of  the  pieces 
of  testimony  is  true,  how  is  it  possible  that  the  whole  is  a  falsehood  f 

In  regard  to  Trumbull's  charge  that  he  {[Douglas]  inserted  a  provision  into  the 
bill  to  prevent  the  Constitution  being  submitted  to  the  people,  what  was  his  an- 
swer? He  corner  here  and  reads  from  the  Congressional  Globe  to  show  that  on  his 
motion  that  provision  was  struck  out  of  the  bill.  Why,  Trumbull  has  not  said  ?t 
was  not  stricken  out,  but  Trumbull  says  he  [Douglas]  put  it  in,  and  :t  is  no  answer 
to  the  charge  to  say  he  afterward  took  it  out.  Both  are  perhaps  true.  It  was 
in  regard  to  that  thing  precisely  that  I  told  him  he  had  dropped  the  cub.  Trum- 
bull  shows  you  that  by  his  introducing  the  bill  it  was  his  cub.  It  is  no  answer 
to  that  assertion  to  call  Trumbull  a  liar  merely  because  he  did  not  specially  say 
that  Douglas  struck  it  out.  Suppose  that  were  the  case,  does  it  answer  Trumb  all  ? 
1  assert  that  you  [pointing  to  an  individual]  are  here  to-day,  and  you  undertake  to 
prove  me  a  liar  by  showing  that  you  were  in  Mattoon  yesterday.  I  say  that  you  took 
your  hat  off  your  head,  and  you  prove  me  a  liar  by  putting  it  on  your  head.  That 
ia  the  whole  force  of  Douglas's  argument 


160 

Now,  I  want  to  come  back  to  my  original  question.  Trumbull  says  that  Judge 
Douglas  had  a  bill  with  a  provision  in  it  for  submitting  a  Constitution  to  be 
made  to  a  vote  of  the  people  of  Kansas.  Does  Judge  Douglas  deny  that  fact? 
Does  he  deny  that  the  provision  which  Trumbull  reads  was  put  in  that  bill?  Then 
Trumbull  says  he  struck  it  out.  Does  he  dare  to  deny  that  ?  He  does  not,  and  I 
have  the  right  to  repeat  the  question — why  Judge  Douglas  took  it  out?  Bigler 
has  said  there  was  a  combination  of  certain  Senators,  among  whom  he  did  not  in- 
clude Judge  Douglas,  by  which  it  was  agreed  that  the  Kansas  bill  should  have 
'ft  clause  in  it  not  to  have  the  Constitution  formed  under  it  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the 
people.  He  did  not  say  that  Douglas  was  among  them,  but  we  prove  by  another 
source  that  about  the  same  time  Douglas  comes  into  the  Senate  with  that  pro- 
vision stricken  out  of  the  hill.  Although  Bigler  cannot  say  they  were  all  working 
in  concert,  yet  it  looks  very  much  as  if  the  thing  was  agreed  upon  and  done  with 
a  mutual  understanding  after  the  conference ;  and  while  we  do  not  know  that  it  was 
absolutely  so, 'yet  it  looks  so  probable  that  we  have  a  right  to  call  upon  the  man 
who  knows  the  true  reason  why  it  was  done,  to  tell  what  the  true  reason  was. 
When  he  will  not  tell  what  the  true  reason  was,  he  stands  in  the  attitude  of  an 
accused  thief  who  has  stolen  goods  in  his  possession,  and  when  called  to  account, 
refuses  to  tell  where  he  got  them.  Not  only  is  this  the  evidence,  but  when  he 
comes  in  with  the  bill  having  the  provision  stricken  out,  he  tells  us  in  a  speech, 
not  then,  but  since,  that  these  alterations  and  modifications  in  the  bill  had  been  made 
by  HIM,  in  consultation  with  Toombs,  the  originator  of  the  bill.  He  tells  us  the 
game  to-day.  He  says  there  were  certain  modifications  made  in  the  bill  in  Com- 
mittee that  he  did  not  vote  for.  I  ask  you  to  remember  while  certain  amendments 
were  made  which  he  disapproved  of,  but  which  a  majority  of  the  Committee  voted 
.in,  he  has  himself  told  us  that  in  this  particular  the  alterations  and  modifications 
were  made  by  him  upon  consultation  with  Toombs.  We  have  his  own  word  that 
these  alterations  were  made  by  him  and  not  by  the  Committee.  Now,  I  ask  what 
is  the  reason  Judge  Douglas  is  so  chary  about  coming  to  the  exact  question?  What 
is  the  reason  he  will  not  tell  you  any  thing  about  now  it  was  ma^de,  BY  WHOM  it 
was  made,  or  that  he  remembers  it  being  made  at  all  ?  Why  does  he  stand 
playing  upon  the  meaning  of  words,  and  quibbling  around  the  edges  of  the  evidence  ? 
If  he  can  explain  all  this,  but  leaves  it  unexplained,  I  have  a  right  to  infer  that 
Judge  Douglas  understood  it  was  the  purpose  of  his  party,  in  engineering  that  bill 
through,  to  make  a  Constitution,  and  have  Kansas  come  into  the  Union  with  that 
Constitution,  without  its  being  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  If  he  wiJl  ex- 
plain his  action  on  this  question,  by  giving  a  better  reason  for  the  facts  that  happened, 
than  he  has  done,  it  will  be  satisfactory.  But  until  he  does  that — until  he  gives  a 
better  or  more  plausible  reason  than  he  has  offered  against  the  evidence  in  the  case 
— /  suggest  to  him  it  will  not  avail  him  at  all  that  he  swells  himself  up,  takes  on 
dignity,  and  calls  people  liars.  Why,  sir,  there  is  not  a  word  in  Trumbull's  speech 
that  depends  on  Trumbuli's  veracity  at  all.  He  has  only  arrayed  the  evidence  and 
told  you  what  follows  as  a  matter  of  reasoning.  There  is  not  a  statement  in  the 
whole  speech  that  depends  on  Trumbull's  word.  If  you  have  ever  studied  geome- 
try, you  remember  that  by  a  course  of  reasoning,  Euclid  proves  that  all  the  angles 
in  a  triangle  are  equal  to  two  right  angles.  Euclid  has  shown  you  how  to  work  it 
out.  Now,  if  you  undertake  to  disprove  that  proposition,  and  to  show  that  it  is 
erroneous,  would  you  prove  it  to  be  false  by  calling  Euclid  a  liar?  They  tell  ma 
that  my  time  is  out,  and  therefore  I  close. 


161 


Kxtract  from  Mr.   TmmbulTs  Speech  made  at  Alton,  referred  to  by  Mr.  Lincoln 
in  his  opening  at  Cfiarleston. 

I  come  now  to  another  extract  from  a  speech  of  Mr.  Douglas,  made  at  Beards- 
town,  and  reported  in  the  Missouri  Republican.  This  extract  has  reference  to  a 
statement  made  by  me  at  Chicago,  wherein  I  charged  that  an  agreement  had  been 
entered  into  by  the  very  persons  now  claiming  credit  for  opposing  a  Constitution  not 
submitted  to  the  people,  to  have  a  Constitution  formed  and  put  in  force  without  giving 
the  people  of  Kansas  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it.  Without  meeting  this  charge, 
which  1  substantiated  by  a  reference  to  the  record,  my  colleague  is  reported  to  have 
said : 

"  For  when  this  charge  was  once  made  in  a  much  milder  form,  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  I  did  brand  it  as  a  lie  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Trumbull,  and  Mr. 
Trumbull  sat  and  heard  it  thus  branded,  without  daring  to  say  it  was  true.  I  tell 
you  he  knew  it  to  be  false  when  he  uttered  it  at  Chicago ;  and  yet  he  says  he  is 
going  to  cram  the  lie  down  his  throat  until  he  should  cry  enough.  The  miserable 
craven-hearted  wretch !  he  would  rather  have  both  ears  cut  off  than  to  use  tiiat  lan- 
guage in  my  presence,  where  I  could  call  him  to  account.  I  see  the  object  is  to  draw 
me  into  a  personal  controversy,  with  the  hope  thereby  of  concealing  from  the  public 
the  enormity  of  the  principles  to  which  they  are  committed.  I  shall  not  allow  much 
of  my  time  in  this  canvass  to  be  occupied  by  these  personal  assaults — I  have  none  to 
make  on  Mr.  Lincoln ;  I  have  none  to  make  on  Mr.  Trumbull ;  I  have  none  to  make 
on  any  other  political  opponent.  If  I  cannot  stand  on  my  own  public  record,  on  my 
own  private  and  public  character  as  history  will  record  it,  I  will  not  attempt  to  rise 
by  traducing  the  character  of  other  men.  I  will  not  make  a  blackguard  of  myself 
by  imitating  the  course  they  have  pursued  against  me.  I  have  no  charges  to  make 
against  them." 

This  is  a  singular  statement  taken  altogether.  After  indulging  in  language  which 
would  disgrace  a  loafer  in  the  filthiest  purlieus  of  a  fish-market,  he  winds  up  by  say- 
ing that  he  will  not  make  a  blackguard  of  himself,  that  he  has  no  charges  to  make 
against  me.  So  I  suppose  he  considers,  that  to  say  of  another  that  he  knew  a  thing 
to  be  false  when  he  uttered  it,  that  he  was  a  "miserable  craven-hearted  wretch,"  does 
not  amount  to  a  personal  assault,  and  does  not  make  a  man  a  blackguard.  A  dis- 
criminating public  will  judge  of  that  for  themselves ;  but  as  he  says  he  has  "  no 
charges  to  make  on  Mr.  Trumbull,"  I  suppose  politeness  requires  I  should  believe 
him.  At  the  risk  of  again  offending  this  mighty  man  of  war,  and  losing  something 
*uoi e  than  my  ears,  I  shall  have  the  audacity  to  again  read  the  record  upon  him  and 
prove  and  pin  upon  him,  so  that  he  cannot  escape  it,  the  truth  of  every  word  I  ut- 
tered at  Chicago.  You,  fellow-citizens,  are  the  judges  to  determine  whether  I  do 
this.  My  colleague  says  he  is  willing  to  stand  on  his  public  record.  By  that  he 
shall  be  tried,  and  if  he  had  been  able  to  discriminate  between  the  exposure  ol  a  pub- 
lic act  by  the  record,  and  a  personal  attack  upon  the  individual,  he  would  have  dis- 
covered that  there  was  nothing  personal  in  my  Chicago  remarks,  unless  the  condem- 
nation of  himself  by  his  own  public  record  is  personal,  and  then  you  must  judge 
who  is  most  to  blame  for  the  torture  his  public  record  inflicts  upon  him,  he  for  mak- 
ing, or  I  for  reading  it  after  it  was  made.  As  an  individual  I  care  very  little  about 
Judge  Douglas  one  way  or  the  other.  It  is  his  public  acts  with  which  I  have  to  do, 
and  if  they  condemn,  disgrace  and  consign  him  to  oblivion,  he  has  only  himself j  not 
me,  to  blame. 

Now,  the  charge  is  that  there  was  a  plot  entered  into  to  have  a  Constitution  formed 
for  Kansas,  and  put  in  force,  without  giving  the  people  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon 
it,  and  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  in  the  plot.  This  is  as  susceptible  of  proof  by  the  rec- 
ord as  is  the  fact  that  the  State  of  Minnesota  was  admitted  into  the  Union  at  the  last 
session  of  Congress. 

On  the  25th  of  June,  1856,  a  bill  was  pending  in  the  United  States  Senate  to  ail- 


162 

thorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  Constitution  and  come  into  the  Union.  On 
that  day  Mr.  Toombs  offered  an  amendment  which  he  intended  to  propose  to  the  bill 
which  was  ordered  to  be  printed,  arid,  with  the  original  bill  and  other  amendments, 
recommended  to  the  Committee  on  Territories,  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  Chairman. 
This  amendment  of  Mr.  Toombs,  printed  by  order  of  the  Senate,  and  a  copy  of 
which  I  have  here  present,  provided  for  the  appointment  of  commissioners  who  were 
to  take  a  census  of  Kansas,  divide  the  Territory  into  election  districts,  and  superin- 
tend the  election  of  delegates  to  form  a  Constitution,  and  contains  a  clause  in  the 
18th  section  which  I  will  read  to  you,  requiring  the  Constitution  which  should  be 
formed  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  adoption.  It  reads  as  follows : 

"  That  the  following  propositions  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  offered  to  the  said 
Convention  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  re- 
jection, which,  if  accepted  by  the  Convention,  and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  elec- 
tion for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  on  the  United  States, 
and  upon  the  said  State  of  Kansas,"  etc. 

It  has  been  contended  by  some  of  the  newspaper  press,  that  this  section  did  not 
require  the  Constitution  which  should  be  formed  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for 
approval,  and  that  it  was  only  the  land  propositions  which  were  to  be  submitted. 
You  will  observe  the  language  is  that  the  propositions  are  to  be  "  ratified  by  the  peo- 
ple at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution."  Would  it  have  been  possi- 
ble to  ratify  the  land  propositions  "  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion," unless  such  an  election  was  to  be  held  ? 

When  one  thing  is  required  by  a  contract  or  law  to  be  done,  the  doing  of  which  is 
made  dependent  upon  and  cannot  be  performed  without  the  doing  of  some  other  thing, 
is  not  that  other  thing  just  as  much  required  by  the  contract  or  law  as  the  first?  It 
matters  not  in  what  part  of  the  act,  nor  in  what  phraseology  the  intention  of  the 
Legislature  is  expressed,  so  you  can  clearly  ascertain  what  it  is ;  and  whenever  that 
intention  is  ascertained  from  an  examination  of  the  language  used,  such  intention  is 
part  of  and  a  requirement  of  the  law.  Can  any  candid,  fair-minded  man,  read  the 
section  I  have  quoted,  and  say  that  the  intention  to  have  the  Constitution  which 
should  be  formed  submitted  to  the  people  for  their  adoption,  is  not  clearly  expressed? 
In  my  judgment  there  can  be  no  controversy  among  honest  men  upon  a  proposition 
so  plain  as  this.  Mr.  Douglas  has  never  pretended  to  deny,  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
that  the  Toombs  amendment,  as  originally  introduced,  did  require  a  submission  of  the 
Constitution  to  the  people.  This  amendment  of  Mr.  Toombs  was  referred  to  the 
committee  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  Chairman,  and  reported  back  by  him  on  the 
30th  of  June,  with  the  words,  "And  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution  "  stricken  out.  I  have  here  a  copy  of  the  bill  as  report- 
ed back  by  Mr.  Douglas  to  substantiate  the  statement  I  make.  Various  other  alter- 
ations were  also  made  in  the  bill  to  which  I  shall  presently  have  occasion  to  call  at- 
tention. There  was  no  other  clause  in  the  original  Toombs  bill  requiring  a  submis- 
sion of  the  Constitution  to  the  people  than  the  one  I  have  read,  and  there  was  no 
clause  whatever,  after  that  was  struck  out,  in  the  bill,  as  reported  back  by  Judge 
Douglas,  requiring  a  submission.  I  will  now  introduce  a  witness  whose  testimony 
cannot  be  impeached,  he  acknowledging  himself  to  have  been  one  of  the  conspirators 
and  privy  to  the  fact  about  which  he  testifies. 

Senator  Bigler  alluding  to  the  Toombs  bill,  as  it  was  called,  and  which,  after  sun- 
dry amendments,  passed  the  Senate,  and  to  the  propriety  of  submitting  the  Constitu- 
tion which  should  be  formed  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  made  the  following  statement  in 
his  place  in  the  Senate,  December  9th,  1857.  I  read  from  part  1,  Congressional 
Globe  of  last  session,  paragraph  2 1 : 

a  I  was  present  when  that  subject  was  discussed  by  Senators,  before  the  bill  was 
introduced,  and  the  question  was  raised  and  discussed  whether  the  Constitution,  when 
formed,  should  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  It  was  held  by  the  most  intel- 
ligent on  the  subject,  that  in  view  of  all  the  difficulties  surrounding  that  Territory, 
the  danger  of  any  experiment  at  that  time  of  a  popular  vote,  it  would  be  better  that 


163 

there  should  be  no  such  provision  in  the  Toombs  bill ;  and  it  is  my  understanding,  in 
all  the  intercourse  I  had,  that  that  Convention  would  make  a  Constitution  and  send 
it  here  without  submitting  it  to  the  popular  vote." 

In  speaking  of  this  meeting  again  on  the  21st  December,  1857  ( Congressional 
Globe,  same  vol.,  page  113),  Senator  Bigler  said: 

"  Nothing  was  farther  from  my  mind  than  to  allude  to  any  social  or  confidential  in- 
terview. The  meeting  was  not  of  that  character.  Indeed,  it  was  semi-official,  and 
called  to  promote  the  public  good.  My  recollection  was  clear  that  I  left  the  confer- 
ence under  the  impression  that  it  had  been  deemed  best  to  adopt  measures  to  admit 
Kansas  as  a  State  through  the  agency  of  one  popular  election,  and  that  for  delegates 
to  the  Convention.  This  impression  was  the  stronger,  because  I  thought  the  spirit 
of  the  bill  infringed  upon  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  to  which  I  had  great  aver- 
sion ;  but  with  the  hope  of  accomplishing  great  good,  and  as  no  movement  had  been 
made  in  that  direction  in  the  Territory,  I  waived  this  objection,  and  concluded  to  sup- 
port the  measure.  I  have  a  few  items  of  testimony  as  to  the  correctness  of  these 
impressions,  and  with  their  submission  I  shall  be  content.  I  have  before  me  the  bill 
reported  by  the  Senator  from  Illinois,  on  the  7th  of  March,  1856,  providing  for  the 
admission  of  Kansas  as  a  State,  the  third  section  of  which  reads  as  follows : 

" '  That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby  offered  to  the  said 
Convention  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  re- 
jection ;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  Convention  and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  elec- 
tion for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  United  States, 
and  upon  the  said  State  of  Kansas.' 

"  The  bill  read  in  place  by  the  Senator  from  Georgia,  on  the  25th  of  June,  and  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Territories,  contained  the  same  section,  word  for  word. 
Both  these  bills  were  under  consideration  at  the  conference  referred  to,  but,  sir,  when 
the  Senator  from  Illinois  reported  the  Toombs  bill  to  the  Senate,  with  amend- 
ments, the  next  morning,  it  did  not  contain  that  portion  of  the  third  section  which  in- 
dicated to  the  Convention  that  the  Constitution  should  be  approved  by  the  people. 
The  words  '  and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  Consti- 
tution '  had  been  stricken  out." 

I  am  not  now  seeking  to  prove  that  Douglas  was  in  the  plot  to  force  a  Constitu- 
tion upon  Kansas  without  allowing  the  people  to  vote  directly  upon  it.  I  shall  at- 
tend to  that  branch  of  the  subject  by  and  by.  My  object  now  is  to  prove  the  exist- 
ence of  the  plot,  what  the  design  was,  and  I  ask  if  I  have  not  already  done  so. 
Here  are  the  facts : 

The  introduction  of  a  bill  on  the  7th  of  March,  1856,  providing  for  the  calling  of 
a  Convention  in  Kansas,  to  form  a  State  Constitution,  and  providing  that  the  Consti- 
tution should  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  adoption ;  an  amendment  to  this  bill, 
proposed  by  Mr.  Toombs,  containing  the  same  requirement ;  a  reference  of  these  va- 
rious bills  to  the  Committee  on  Territories ;  a  consultation  of  Senators  to  determine 
whether  it  was  advisable  to  have  the  Constitution  submitted  for  ratification ;  the  de- 
termination that  it  was  not  advisable ;  and  a  report  of  the  bill  back  to  the  Senate 
next  morning,  with  the  clause  providing  for  the  submission  stricken  out.  Could  evi- 
dence be  more  complete  to  establish  the  first  part  of  the  charge  I  have  made  of  a 
plot  having  been  entered  into  by  somebody,  to  have  a  Constitution  adopted  without 
submitting  it  to  the  people  ? 

Now,  for  the  other  part  of  the  charge,  that  Judge  Douglas  was  in  this  plot,  whether 
knowingly  or  ignorantly,  is  not  material  to  my  purpose.  The  charge  is  that  he  was 
an  instrument  co-operating  in  the  project  to  have  a  Constitution  formed  and  put  into 
operation,  without  affording  the  people  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it.  The  first  evi- 
dence to  sustain  the  charge  is  the  fact  that  he  reported  back  the  Toombs  amendment 
with  the  clause  providing  for  the  submission  stricken  out.  This,  in  connection  with 
his  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  9th  of  December,  1857  (Congressional  Globe,  part  1, 
page  14),  wherein  he  stated: 

*'  That  during  the  last  Congress,  I  [Mr.  Douglas]  reported  a  bill  from  the  Com 


164 

mittee  on  Territories,  to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  assemble  and  form  a  Con- 
stitution for  themselves.  Subsequently  the  Senater  from  Georgia  (Mr.  Toombs) 
brought  forward  a  substitute  for  my  bill,  which,  after  having  been  modified  by  him 
and  myself  in  consultation,  was  passed  by  the  Senate." 

This  of  itself  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  show  that  my  colleage  was  an  instrument  in 
the  plot  to  have  a  Constitution  put  in  force  without  submitting  it  to  the  people,  and 
to  forever  close  his  mouth  from  attempting  to  deny.  No  man  can  reconcile  his  acts 
and  former  declarations  with  his  present  denial,  and  the  only  charitable  conclusion 
would  be  that  he  was  being  used  by  others  without  knowing  it.  Whether  he  is  en- 
titled to  the  benefit  of  even  this  excuse,  you  must  judge  on  a  candid  hearing  of  the 
facts  I  shall  present.  When  the  charge  was  first  made  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
by  Mr.  Bigler,  that  my  colleague  had  voted  for  an  Enabling  Act  which  put  a  Govern- 
ment in  operation  without  submitting  the  Constitution  to  the  people,  my  colleague 
(Congressional  Globe,  last  session,  part  1,  page  24)  stated: 

"I  will  ask  the  Senator  to  show  me  an  intimation  from  any  one  member  of  the 
Senate,  in  the  whole  debate  on  the  Toombs  bill,  and  in  the  Union  from  any  quarter, 
that  the  Constitution  was  not  to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  I  will  venture  to  say 
that  on  all  sides  of  the  chamber  it  was  so  understood  at  the  time.  If  the  opponents 
of  the  bill  had  understood  it  was  not,  they  would  have  made  the  point  on  it ;  and  if 
they  had  made  it  we  should  certainly  have  yielded  to  it,  and  put  in  the  clause.  That 
is  a  discovery  made  since  the  President  found  out  that  it  was  not  safe  to  take  it  for 
granted  that  that  would  be  done  which  ought  in  fairness  to  have  been  done." 

I  knew  at  the  time  this  statement  was  made,  that  I  had  urged  the  very  objection 
to  the  Toombs  bill  two  years  before,  that  it  did  not  provide  for  the  submission  of  the 
Constitution.  You  will  find  my  remarks,  made  on  the  2d  of  July,  1856,  in  the  ap- 
pendix to  the  Congressional  Globe  of  that  year,  page  179,  urging  this  very  objection. 
Do  you  ask  why  I  did  not  expose  him  at  the  time  ?  I  will  tell  you — Mr.  Douglas 
was  then  doing  good  service  against  the  Lecompton  iniquity.  The  Republicans  were 
then  engaged  in  a  hand-to-hand  fight  with  the  National  Democracy,  to  prevent  the 
bringing  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State  against  the  wishes  of  its  inhabi- 
tants, and  of  course  I  was  unwilling  to  turn  our  guns  from  the  common  enemy  to 
strike  down  an  ally.  Judge  Douglas,  however,  on  the  same  day,  and  in  the  same  de- 
bate, probably  recollecting,  or  being  reminded  of  the  fact,  that  I  had  objected  to  the 
Toombs  bill  when  pending,  that  it  did  not  provide  for  the  submission  of  the  Constitu- 
tion to  the  people,  made  another  statement  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  same  volume 
of  the  Congressional  Globe,  page  22,  in  which  he  says : 

"  That  the  bill  was  silent  on  the  subject  is  true,  and  my  attention  was  called  to 
that  about  the  time  it  was  passed ;  and  I  took  the  fair  construction  to  be,  that  powers 
not  delegated  were  reserved,  and  that  of  course  the  Constitution  would  be  submitted 
to  the  people.  Whether  this  statement  is  consistent  with  the  statement  just  before 
made,  that  had  the  point  been  made  it  would  have  been  yielded  to,  or  that  it  was  a 
new  discovery,  you  will  determine ;  for  if  the  public  records  do  not  convict  and  con- 
demn him,  he  may  go  uncondernned,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  I  make  no  use  here 
of  the  testimony  of  Senator  Bigler  to  show  that  Judge  Douglas  must  have  been  privy 
to  the  consultation  held  at  his  house,  when  it  was  determined  not  to  submit  the  Con- 
stitution to  the  people,  because  Judge  Douglas  denies  it,  and  I  wish  to  use  his  own 
acts  and  declarations,  which  are  abundantly  sufficient  for  my  purpose. 

I  come  to  a  piece  of  testimony  which  disposes  of  all  these  various  pretenses  which 
have  been  set  up  for  striking  out  of  the  original  Toombs  proposition,  the  clause  re- 
quiring a  submission  of  the  Constitution  to  the  people,  and  shows  that  it  was  not  done 
either  by  accident,  by  inadvertence,  or  because  it  was  believed  that  the  bill,  being 
silent  on  the  subject,  the  Constitution  would  necessarily  be  submitted  to  the  people 
for  approval.  What  will  you  think,  after  listening  to  the  facts  already  presented,  to 
ahow  that  there  was  a  design  with  those  who  concocted  the  Toombs  bill  as  amended, 
not  to  submit  the  Constitution  to  the  people,  if  I  now  bring  before  you  the  amended 
hill  as  Judge  Douglas  reported  it  back,  and  show  the  clause  of  the  original  bill  re- 


165 

quiring  submission,  was  not  only  struck  out,  but  that  other  clauses  were  inserted  in 
the  bill  putting  it  absolutely  out  of  the  power  of  the  Convention  to  submit  the  Con- 
stitution to  the  people  for  approval,  had  they  desired  to  do  so?  If  I  can  produce 
such  evidence  as  that,  will  you  not  all  agree  that  it  clinches  and  establishes  forever 
all  I  charged  at  Chicago,  and  more  too  ? 

I  propose  now  to  furnish  that  evidence.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Toombs's 
bill  provided  for  holding  an  election  for  delegates  to  form  a  Constitution  under  the 
supervision  of  commissioners  to  be  appointed  by  the  President,  and  in  the  bill  as  re- 
ported back  by  Judge  Douglas,  these  words,  not  to  be  found  in  the  oriyinul  bill,  are 
inserted  at  the  close  of  the  llth  section,  viz: 

4fcAnd  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in 
laid  Territory." 

Tl  is  clause  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  Convention  to  refer  to  the  people  for 
adoption  ;  it  absolutely  prohibited  the  holding  of  any  other  election  than  that  for  the 
election  of  delegates,  till  that  act  was  completely  executed,  which  would  not  have 
been  until  Kansas  was  admitted  as  a  State,  or  at  all  events  till  her  Constitution  was 
fully  prepared  and  ready  for  submission  to  Congress  for  admission  Other  amerxl- 
ments  reported  by  Judge  Douglas  to  the  original  Toombs  bill,  clearly  show  that  the 
intention  was  to  enable  Kansas  to  become  a  State  without  any  further  action  than 
simply  a  resolution  of  admission.  The  amendment  reported  by  Mr.  Douglas,  that 
"  until  the  next  Congressional  apportionment,  the  said  State  shall  have  one  represen- 
tative," clearly  shows  this,  no  such  provision  being  contained  in  the  original  Toombs 
bill.  For  what  other  earthly  purpose  could  the  clause  to  prevent  any  other  election 
in  Kansas,  except  that  of  delegates,  till  it  was  admitted  as  a  State,  have  been  inserted 
except  to  prevent  a  submission  of  the  Constitution,  when  formed,  to  the  people  ? 

The  Toombs  bill  did  not  pass  in  the  exact  shape  in  which  Judge  Douglas  reported 
it.  Several  amendments  were  made  to  it  in  the  Senate.  I  am  now  dealing  with  the 
action  of  Judge  Douglas  as  connected  with  that  bill,  and  speak  of  the  bill  as  he  re- 
commended it.  The  facts  I  have  stated  in  regard  to  this  matter  appear  upon  the 
records,  which  I  have  here  present  to  show  to  any  man  who  wishes  to  look  at  them. 
They  establish  beyond  the  power  of  controversey,  all  the  charges  I  have  made,  and 
show  that  Judge  Douglas  was  made  use  of  as  an  instrument  by  others,  or  else  know- 
ingly was  a  party  to  the  scheme  to  have  a  Government  put  in  force  over  the  people 
of  Kansas,  without  giving  them  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it.  That  others  high  in 
position  in  the  so-called  Democratic  party  were  parties  to  such  a  scheme  is  confessed 
by  Gov.  Bigler ;  and  the  only  reason  why  the  scheme  was  not  carried,  and  Kansas 
long  ago  forced  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State,  is  the  fact,  that  the  Republicans  were 
sufficiently  strong  in  the  House  of  Representatives  to  defeat  the  measure. 


Extract  from  Mr.  Douglas's  Speech  made  at  Jacksonville,  and  referred  to  ly  Mr 
Lincoln  in  his  opening  at   Charleston. 

I  have  been  reminded  by  a  friend  behind  me  that  there  is  another  topic  upon 
which  there  has  been  a  desire  expressed  that  I  should  speak.  I  am  told  that  Mr. 
Lyman  Trumbull,  who  has  the  good  fortune  to  hold  a  seat  in  the  United  States  Sen- 
ate, in  violation  of  the  bargain  between  him  and  Lincoln,  was  here  the  other  day 
and  occupied  his  time  in  making  certain  charges  against  me,  involving,  if  they  be 
true,  moral  turpitude.  I  am  also  informed  that  the  charges  he  made  here  were  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  those  made  by  him  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  which  were  printed 
in  the  newspapers  of  that  city.  I  now  propose  to  answer  those  charges  and  to  anni- 
hilate every  pretext  that  an  honest  man  has  ever  had  for  repeating  them. 

In  order  that  I  may  meet  these  charges  fairly,  I  will  read  them,  as  made  by  Mr. 
Trumbull,  in  his  Chicago  speech,  in  his  own  language.  He  says : 

"  Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  make  the  distinct  charge  that  there  was  a  preconcerted 


167 

In  order  to  give  more  pertinency  to  that  question,  I  will  read  an  extract  from 
rrumbull's  speech  in  the  Senate,  on  the  Toombs  bill,  made  on  the  2d  of  July,  1856. 
He  said : 

"  We  are  asked  to  amend  this  bill,  and  make  it  perfect,  and  a  liberal  spirit  seems 
to  be  manifested  on  the  part  of  some  Senators  to  have  a  fair  bill.  It  is  difficult,  I 
admit,  to  frame  a  bill  that  will  give  satisfaction  to  all,  but  to  approach  it,  or  come 
near  it,  I  think  two  things  must  be  done." 

The  first,  then,  he  goes  on  to  say,  was  the  application  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  to 
the  Territories,  and  the  second  the  repeal  of  all  the  laws  passed  by  the  Territorial  Leg- 
islature. He  did  not  then  say  that  it  was  necessary  to  put  in  a  clause  requiring  the 
submission  of  the  Constitution.  Why,  if  he  thought  such  a  provision  necessary,  did 
he  not  introduce  it  ?  He  says  in  his  speech  that  he  was  invited  to  offer  amend- 
ments Why  did  he  not  do  so  ?  He  cannot  pretend  that  he  had  no  chance  to  do 
this,  for  he  did  offer  some  amendments,  but  none  requiring  submission. 

I  now  proceed  to  show  that  Mr.  Trumbull  knew  at  the  time  that  the  bill  was 
silent  as  to  the  subject  of  submission,  and  also  that  he,  and  every  body  else,  took  it 
for  granted  that  the  Constitution  would  be  submitted.  Now  for  the  evidence.  In 
his  second  speech  he  says :  "  The  bill  in  many  of  its  features  meets,  my  approbation." 
So  he  did  not  think  it  so  very  bad. 

Further  on  he  says : 

"  In  regard  to  the  measure  introduced  by  the  Senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs}, 
and  recommended  by  the  Committee,  I  regard  it,  in  many  respects,  as  a  most  excel- 
lent bill ;  but  we  must  look  at  it  in  the  light  of  surrounding  circumstances.  In  the 
condition  of  things  now  existing  in  the  country,  I  do  not  consider  it  as  a  safe  meas- 
ure, nor  one  which  will  give  peace,  and  I  will  give  my  reasons.  First,  it  affords  no 
immediate  relief.  It  provides  for  taking  a  census  of  the  voters  in  the  Territory, 
for  an  election  in  November,  and  the  assembling  of  a  Convention  in  December,  to 
form,  if  it  thinks  proper,  a  Constitution  for  Kansas,  preparatory  to  its  admission  into 
the  Union  as  a  State.  It  is  not  until  December  that  the  Convention  is  to  meet.  It 
would  take  some  time  to  form  a  Constitution.  I  suppose  tfiat  Constitution  would 
have  to  be  ratified  by  the  people  before  it  becomes  valid" 

He  there  expressly  declared  that  he  supposed,  under  the  bill,  the  Constitution 
would  have  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  before  it  became  valid.  He  went  on 
to  say : 

"  No  provision  is  made  in  this  bill  for  such  a  ratification.  This  is  objectionable  to 
my  mind.  I  do  not  think  the  people  should  be  bound  by  a  Constitution,  without 
passing  upon  it  directly,  themselves." 

Why  did  he  not  offer  an  amendment  providing  for  such  a  submission,  if  he 
thought  it  necessary  ?  Notwithstanding  the  absence  of  such  a  clause,  he  took  it 
for  granted  that  the  Constitution  would  have  to  be  ratified  by  the  people,  under 
the  bill. 

In  another  part  of  the  same  speech,  he  says : 

"  There  is  nothing  said  in  this  bill,  so  far  as  I  have  discovered,  about  submitting 
the  Constitution  which  is  to  be  framed,  to  the  people,  for  their  sanction  or  rejection. 
Perhaps  the  Convention  would  have  the  right  to  submit  it,  if  it  should  think  proper; 
but  it  is  certainly  not  compelled  to  do  so,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill.  If 
it  is  to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  it  will  take  time,  and  it  will  not  be  until  some 
time  next  year  that  this  new  Constitution,  affirmed  and  ratified  by  the  people,  would 
be  submitted  here  to  Congress  for  its  acceptance,  and  what  is  to  be  the  condition  of 
that  people  in  the  meantime  ?" 

You  see  that  his  argument  then  was  that  the  Toombs  bill  would  not  get  Kansas 
into  the  Union  quick  enough  and  was  objectionable  on  that  account.  He  had 
no  fears  about  this  submission,  or  why  did  he  not  introduce  an  amendment  to  meet 
the  case  ? 

A  voice — "  Why  didn't  you  ?     You  were  Chairman  of  the  Committee." 

Mr.  Douglas — I  will  answer  that  question  for  you. 


166 

arrangement  and  plot  entered  into  bj  the  very  men  who  now  claim  credit  for  oppos- 
ing a  Constitution  not  submitted  to  the  people,  to  have  a  Constitution  formed  and 
put  in  force  without  giving  the  people  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it.  This,  my 
friends,  is  a  serious  charge,  but  I  charge  it  to-night,  that  the  very  men  who  traverse 
the  country  under  banners,  proclaiming  popular  sovereignty,  by  design,  concocted  a 
bill  on  purpose  to  force  a  Constitution  upon  that  people." 

Again,  speaking  to  some  one  in  the  crowd,  he  says : 

"And  you  want  to  satisfy  yourself  that  he  was  in  the  plot  to  force  a  Constitution 
upon  that  people?  I  will  satisfy  you.  I  will  cram  the  truth  down  any  honest  man's 
throat,  until  he  cannot  deny  it,  and  to  the  man  who  does  deny  it,  I  will  cram  the  lie 
down  his  throat  till  he  shall  cry  enough !  It  is  preposterous— it  is  the  most  damnable 
effrontery  that  man  ever  put  on  to  conceal  a  scheme  to  defraud  and  cheat  the  people 
out  of  their  rights,  and  then  claim  credit  for  it." 

That  is  polite  and  decent  language  for  a  Senator  of  the  United  States.  Remem- 
ber that  that  language  was  used  without  any  provocation  whatever  from  me.  I  had 
not  alluded  to  him  in  any  manner  in  any  speech  that  I  had  made,  hence  without 
provocation.  As  soon  as  he  sets  his  foot  within  the  State,  he  makes  the  direct 
charge  that  I  was  a  party  to  a  plot  to  force  a  Constitution  upon  the  people  of 
Kansas  against  their  will,  and  knowing  that  it  would  be  denied,  he  talks  about 
cramming  the  lie  down  the  throat  of  any  man  who  shall  deny  it,  until  he  cries 
enough. 

Why  did  he  take  it  for  granted  that  it  would  be  denied,  unless  he  knew  it  to  be 
false  ?  Why  did  he  deem  it  necessary  to  make  a  threat  in  advance  that  he  would 
"  cram  the  lie  "  down  the  throat  of  any  man  that  should  deny  it  ?  I  have  no  doubt 
that  the  entire  Abolition  party  consider  it  very  polite  for  Mr.  Trumbull  to  go  round 
uttering  calumnies  of  that  kind,  bullying  and  talking  of  cramming  lies  down  men's 
throats ;  but  if  I  deny  any  of  his  lies  by  calling  him  a  liar,  they  are  shocked  at  the 
indecency  of  the  language ;  hence,  to-day,  instead  of  calling  him  a  liar  I  intend  to 
prove  that  he  is  one. 

I  wish  in  the  first  place  to  refer  to  the  evidence  adduced  by  Trumbull,  at  Chicago, 
to  sustain  his  charge.  He  there  declared  that  Mr.  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  intro- 
duced a  bill  into  Congress  authorizing  the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  Constitution 
and  come  into  the  Union,  that  when  introduced  it  contained  a  clause  requiring  the 
Constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  and  that  I  struck  out  the  words  of  that 
clause. 

Suppose  it  were  true  that  there  was  such  a  clause  in  the  bill,  and  that  I  struck  it 
out,  is  that  proof  of  a  plot  to  force  a  Constitution  upon  a  people  against  their  will  ? 
Bear  in  mind,  that  from  the  days  of  George  Washington  to  the  Administration  of 
Franklin  Pierce,  there  had  never  been  passed  by  Congress  a  bill  requiring  the 
submission  of  a  Constitution  to  the  people.  If  Trumbull's  charge,  that  I  struck 
out  that  clause,  were  true,  it  would  only  prove  that  I  had  reported  the  bill  in 
the  exact  shape  of  every  bill  of  like  character  that  passed  under  Washington, 
Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  Jackson,  or  any  other  President,  to  the  time  of  the  then 
present  Administration.  I  ask  you,  would  that  be  evidence  of  a  design  to  force  a 
Constitution  on  a  people  against  their  will  ?  If  it  were  so,  it  would  be  evidence 
against  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Jackson,  Van  Buren,  and  every  other 
President. 

But  upon  examination,  it  turns  out  that  the  Toombs  bill  never  did  contain  a  clause 
requiring  the  Constitution  to  be  submitted.  Hence  no  such  clause  was  ever  stricken 
out  by  me  or  any  body  else.  It  is  true,  however,  that  the  Toombs  bill  and  its  au- 
thors all  took  it  for  granted  that  the  Constitution  would  be  submitted.  There  had 
never  been,  in  the  history  of  this  Government,  any  attempt  made  to  force  a  Consti- 
tution upon  an  unwilling  people,  and  nobody  dreamed  that  any  such  attempt  would 
be  made,  or  deemed  it  necessary  to  provide  for  such  a  contingency.  If  such  a  clause 
was  necessary  in  Mr.  Trumbull's  opinion,  why  did  he  not  offer  an  amendment  to  that 
effect  ? 


168 

In  (lie  first  place,  no  such  provision  had  ever  before  been  put  in  any  similar  act 
passed  by  Congress.  I  did  not  suppose  that  there  was  an  honest  man  who  would  pre- 
tend that  the  omission  of  such  a  clause  furnished  evidence  of  a  conspiracy  or  attempt 
to  impose  on  the  people.  It  eould  not  be  expected  that  such  of  us  as  did  not  think 
that  omission  was  evidence  of  such  a  scheme,  would  offer  such  an  amendment;  but 
if  Trumbull  then  believed  what  he  now  says,  why  did  he  not  oiler  the  amend- 
ment, and  try  to  prevent  it,  when  he  was,  as  he  says,  invited  to  do  so  ? 

In  this  connection  I  will  tell  you  what  the  main  point  of  discussion  was:  There 
was  a  bill  pending  to  admit  Kansas  whenever  she  should  have  a  population  of 
93,420,  that  being  the  ratio  required  for  a  member  of  Congress.  Under  that  bill 
Kansas  could  not  have  become  a  State  for  some  years,  because  she  could  not  have 
had  the  requisite  population.  Mr.  Tooinbs  took  it  into  his  head  to  bring  in  a  bill  to 
admit  Kansas  then,  with  only  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand  people,  and  the  question 
was  whether  we  would  allow  Kansas  to  come  in  under  this  bill,  or  keep  her  out 
under  mine  until  she  had  93,420  people.  The  Committee  considered  that  question, 
and  overruled  me  by  deciding  in  favor  of  the  immediate  admission  of  Kansas,  and  I 
reported  accordingly .  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  copy  of  the  Report  which  I  made  at  that 
dine.  I  will  read  from  it : 

4i  The  point  upon  which  your  Committee  have  entertained  the  most  serious  and 
grave  doubts  in  regard  to  the  propriety  of  indorsing  the  proposition,  relates  to  the 
fact  that,  in  the  absence  of  any  census  of  the  inhabitants,  there  is  reason  to  appre- 
hend that  the  Territory  does  not  contain  sufficient  population  to  ettitle  them  to  de- 
mand admission  under  the  treaty  with  France,  if  we  take  the  ratio  of  representation 
for  a  member  of  Congress  as  the  rule." 

Thus  you  see  that  in  the  written  report  accompanying  the  bill,  I  said  that  the 
great  difficulty  with  the  Committee  was  the  question  of  population.  In  the  same 
report  I  happened  to  refer  to  the  question  of  submission.  Now,  listen  to  what  I  said 
about  that : 

"  In  the  opinion  of  your  Committee,  whenever  a  Constitution  shall  be  formed  in 
any  Territory,  preparatory  to  its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  justice,  the 
genius  of  our  institutions,  the  whole  theory  of  our  republican  system,  imperatively 
demands  that  the  voice  of  the  people  shall  be  fairly  expressed,  and  their  will  em- 
bodied in  that  fundamental  law  without  fraud  or  violence,  or  intimidation,  or  any 
other  improper  or  unlawful  influence,  and  subject  to  no  other  restrictions  than  those 
imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

I  read  this  from  the  Report  I  made  at  the  time,  on  the  Tooinbs  bill.  I  will  read 
yet  another  passage  from  the  same  Report ;  after  setting  out  the  features  of  the 
Tooinbs  bill,  I  contrast  it  with  the  proposition  of  Senator  Seward,  saying : 

"  The  revised  proposition  of  the  Senator  from  Georgia  refers  all  matters  in  dis- 
pute to  the  decision  of  the  present  population,  with  guaranties  of  fairness  and  safe- 
guards against  frauds  and  violence,  to  which  no  reasonable  man  can  find  just  grounds 
of  exception,  while  the  Senator  from  New  York,  if  his  proposition  is  designed  to 
recognize  and  impart  vitality  to  the  Topeka  Constitution,  proposes  to  disfranchise  not 
only  all  the  emigrants  who  have  arrived  in  the  Territory  this  year,  but  all  the  law- 
abiding  men  who  refused  to  join  in  the  act  of  open  rebellion  against  the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  Territory  last  year  by  making  the  unauthorized  and  unlawful 
action  of  a  political  party  the  fundamental  law  of  the  whole  people." 

Then,  again,  I  repeat  that  under  that  bill  the  question  is  to  be  referred  to  the  pres- 
ent population  to  decide  for  or  against  coming  into  the  Union  under  the  Constitution 
they  may  adopt. 

Mr.  Trumbull,  when  at  Chicago,  rested  his  charge  upon  the  allegation  that  the 
clause  requiring  submission  was  originally  in  the  bill,  and  was  stricken  out  by  me. 
When  that  falsehood  was  exposed  by  a  publication  of  the  record,  he  went  to  Alton 
and  made  another  speech,  repeating  the  charge  and  referring  to  other  and  different 
evidence  to  sustain  it.  He  saw  that  he  was  caught  in  his  first  falsehood,  so  he 
changed  the  issue,  and  instead  of  resting  upon  the  allegation  of  striking  out,  he  made 


169 

It  rest  upon  the  declaration  that  I  had  introduced  a  clause  into  the  bill  prohibiting 
the  people  from  voting  upon  the  Constitution.  I  am  told  that  he  made  the  same 
charge  here  that  he  made  at  Alton,  that  I  had  actually  introduced  and  incorporated 
into  the  bill,  a  clause  which  prohibited  the  people  from  voting  upon  their  Constitu- 
tion. I  hold  his  Alton  speech  in  my  hand,  and  will  read  the  amendment,  which  he 
alleges  that  I  offered.  It  is  in  these  words  : 

"And  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in 
said  Territory." 

Trumbull  says  the  object  of  that  amendment  was  to  prevent  the  Convention  frm 
submitting  the  Constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  I  will  read  what  lie  said  at 
Alton  on  that  subject : 

"  This  clause  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  Convention,  had  it  been  so  disposed, 
to  submit  the  Constitution  to  the  people  for  adoption;  for  it  absolutely  prohibited  the 
holding  of  any  other  election,  than  that  for  the  election  of  delegates,  till  that  act  was 
completely  executed,  which  would  not  have  been  till  Kansas  was  admitted  as  a  State, 
or,  at  all  events,  till  her  Constitution  was  fully  prepared  and  ready  for  submission  to 
Congress  for  admission." 

Now,  do  you  suppose  that  Mr.  Trumbull  supposed  that  that  clause  prohibited  the 
Convention  from  submitting  the  Constitution  to  the  people,  when,  in  his  speech  in  the 
Senate,  he  declared  that  the  Convention  had  a  right  to  submit  it?  In  his  Alton 
speech,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  extract  which  I  have  read,  he  declared  that  the  clause 
put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  Convention  to  submit  the  Constitution,  and  in  his 
speech  in  the  Senate  he  said  : 

ft  There  is  nothing  said  in  this  bill,  so  far  as  I  have  discovered,  about  submitting 
the  Constitution  which  is  to  be  formed,  to  the  people,  for  their  sanction  or  rejection. 
Perhaps  the  Convention  could  have  the  right  to  submit  it,  if  it  should  think  proper, 
but  it  is  certainly  not  compelled  to  do  so  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill." 

Thus  you  see  that,  in  Congress,  he  declared  the  bill  to  be  silent  on  the  subject,  and 
a  few  days  since,  at  Alton,  he  made  a  speech,  and  said  that  there  was  a  provision  in 
the  bill  prohibiting  submission. 

I  have  two  answers  to  make  to  that.  In  the  first  place,  the  amendment  which  he 
quotes  as  depriving  the  people  of  an  opportunity  to  vote  upon  the  Constitution,  was 
stricken  out  on  my  motion — absolutely  stricken  out  and  not  voted  on  at  all !  In  the 
second  place,  in  lieu  of  it,  a  provision  was  voted  in  authorizing  the  Convention  to 
order  an  election  whenever  it  pleased.  I  will  read.  After  Trumbull  had  made  his 
speech  in  the  Senate,  declaring  that  the  Constitution  would  probably  be  submitted 
to  the  people,  although  the  bill  was  silent  upon  that  subject,  I  made  a  few  remarks, 
and  offered  two  amendments,  which  you  may  tind  in  the  Appendix  to  the  Con 
gressional  Globe,  volume  thirty-three,  first  session  of  the  thirty-fourth  Congress, 
page  795. 

I  quote : 

"  Mr.  Douglas — I  have  an  amendment  to  offer  from  the  Committee  on  Territories. 
On  page  8,  section  11,  strike  out  the  words  *  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act 
no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory,'  and  insert  the  amendment  which  I 
hold  in  my  hand." 

The  amendment  was  as  follows  : 

"  That  all  persons  who  shall  possess  the  other  qualifications  prescribed  for  voters 
under  this  act,  and  who  shall  have  been  bonafide  inhabitants  of  said  Territory  since 
its  organization,  and  who  shall  have  absented  themselves  therefrom  in  consequence 
of  the  disturbances  therein,  and  who  shall  return  before  the  first  day  of  October 
next,  and  become  bonafide  inhabitants  of  the  Territory,  with  the  intent  of  making 
it  their  permanent  home,  and  shall  present  satisfactory  evidence  of  these  facts  to  the 
Board  of  Commissioners,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  said  election,  and  shall  have 
their  names  placed  on  said  corrected  list  of  voters  for  that  purpose." 

That  amendment  was  adopted  unanimously.  After  its  adoption,  the  record  shows 
the  following : 


170 

"  Mr.  Douglas — I  have  another  amendment  to  offer  from  the  Committee,  to  follow 
the  amendment  which  has  been  adopted.  The  bill  reads  now,  '  and  until  the  com- 
plete execution  of  this  act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory.'  It  has 
been  suggested  that  it  should  be  modified  in  this  way,  'and  to  avoid  all  conflict  in 
the  complete  execution  of  this  act,  all  other  elections  in  said  Territory  are  hereby 
postponed  until  such  time  as  said  Convention  shall  appoint,'  so  that  they  can  appoint 
the  day  in  the  event  that  there  should  be  a  failure  to  come  into  the  Union." 

This  amendment  was  also  agreed  to  without  dissent. 

Thus  you  see  that  the  amendment  quoted  by  Trumbull,  at  Alton,  as  evidence 
against  me,  instead  of  being  put  into  the  bill  by  me,  was  stricken  out  on  my  motion, 
and  never  became  a  part  thereof  at  all.  You  also  see  that  the  substituted  clause 
expressly  authorized  the  Convention  to  appoint  such  day  of  election  as  it  should 
deem  proper. 

Mr.  Trumbull  when  he  made  that  speech  knew  these  facts.  He  forged  his  evi- 
dence from  beginning  to  end,  and  by  falsifying  the  record  he  endeavors  to  bolster  up 
his  false  charge.  I  ask  you  what  you  think  of  Trumbull  thus  going  around  the 
country,  falsifying  and  garbling  the  public  records.  I  ask  you  whether  you  will 
sustain  a  man  who  will  descend  to  the  infamy  of  such  conduct. 

Mr.  Douglas  proceeded  to  remark  that  he  should  not  hereafter  occupy  his  time  in 
refuting  such  charges  made  by  Trumbull,  but  that  Lincoln  having  indorsed  the  char- 
acter of  Trumbull  for  veracity,  he  should  hold  him  [Lincoln]  responsible  for  the 
glanders. 


FIFTH  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  GALESBURGH, 

October  7,  1858. 


MR.  DOUGLAS'S  SPEECH. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  Four  years  ago  I  appeared  before  the  people  of 
Knox  county  for  the  purpose  of  defending  my  political  action  upon  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850  and  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  Those  of  you  be- 
fore me,  who  were  present  then,  will  remember  that  I  vindicated  myself  for  support- 
ing those  two  measures  by  the  fact  that  they  rested  upon  the  great  fundamental  prin- 
ciple that  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  of  this  Union  have  the  right, 
and  ought  to  be  permitted  to  exercise  the  right,  of  regulating  their  own  domestic  con- 
cerns in  their  own  way,  subject  to  no  other  limitation  or  restriction  than  that  which 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  imposes  upon  them.  I  then  called  upon  the 
people  of  Illinois  to  decide  whether  that  principle  of  self-government  was  right  or 
wrong.  If  it  was  and  is  right,  then  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  wore  right, 
and.  consequently,  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill,  based  upon  the  same  principle, 
must  necessarily  have  been  right. 

The  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  declared,  in  so  many  words,  that  it  was  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or  Territory,  nor 
to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  For  the  last  four  years  I  have  devoted  all  my  energies,  in 
private  and  public,  to  commend  that  principle  to  the  American  people.  Whatever 
else  may  be  said  in  condemnation  or  support  of  my  political  course,  I  apprehend 


171 

that  no  honest  man  will  doubt  the  fidelity  with  which,  under  all  circumstances,  I  have 
stood  by  it. 

During  the  last  year  a  question  arose  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  whether 
or  not  that  principle  would  be  violated  by  the  admission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union 
under  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  In  my  opinion,  the  attempt  to  force  Kansas  in 
under  that  Constitution,  was  a  gross  violation  of  the  principle  enunciated  in  the  Com- 
promise measures  of  1850,  and  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  of  1854,  and  therefore  I 
led  off  in  the  fight  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  and  conducted  it  until  the 
effort  to  carry  that  Constitution  through  Congress  was  abandoned.  And  I  can  appeal 
to  all  men,  friends  and  foes,  Democrats  and  Republicans,  Northern  men  and  South- 
ern men,  that  during  the  whole  of  that  fight  I  carried  the  banner  of  Popular  Sov- 
ereignty aloft,  and  never  allowed  it  to  trail  in  the  dust,  or  lowered  rny  flag  until  vic- 
tory perched  upon  our  arms.  When  the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  defeated,  the 
question  arose  in  the  minds  of  those  who  had  advocated  it  what  they  should  next 
resort  to  in  order  to  carry  out  their  views.  They  devised  a  measure  known  as  the 
English  bill,  and  granted  a  general  amnesty  and  political  pardon  to  all  men  who  had 
fought  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  provided  they  would  support  that  bill.  I 
for  one  did  not  choose  to  accept  the  pardon,  or  to  avail  myself  of  the  amnesty  granted 
on  that  condition.  The  fact  that  the  supporters  of  Lecompton  were  willing  to  forgive 
all  differences  of  opinion  at  that  time  in  the  event  those  who  opposed  it  favored  the 
English  bill,  was  an  admission  they  did  not  think  that  opposition  to  Lecompton  im- 
paired a  man's  standing  in  the  Democratic  party.  Now  the  question  arises,  what 
was  that  English  bill  which  certain  men  are  now  attempting  to  make  a  test  of  politi- 
cal orthodoxy  in  this  country.  It  provided,  in  substance,  that  the  Lecompton  Con- 
stitution should  be  sent  back  to  the  people  of  Kansas  for  their  adoption  or  rejection, 
at  an  election  which  was  held  in  August  last,  and  in  case  they  refused  admission  un- 
der it,  that  Kansas  should  be  kept  out  of  the  Union  until  she  had  93,420  inhabitants. 
I  was  in  favor  of  sending  the  Constitution  back  in  order  to  enable  the  people  to  say 
whether  or  not  it  was  their  act  and  deed,  and  embodied  their  will ;  but  the  other 
proposition,  that  if  they  refused  to  come  into  the  Union  under  it,  they  should  be  kept 
out  until  they  had  double  or  treble  the  population  they  then  had,  I  never  would  sanc- 
tion by  my  vote.  The  reason  why  I  could  not  sanction  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
by  the  English  bill,  if  the  people  of  Kansas  had  only  agreed  to  become  a  slavehold- 
ing  vState  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  they  could  have  done  so  with  35,000 
people,  but  if  they  insisted  on  being  a  free  State,  as  they  had  a  right  to  do,  then 
they  were  to  be  punished  by  being  kept  out  of  the  Union  until  they  had  nearly  three 
times  that  population.  I  then  said  in  my  place  in  the  Senate,  as  I  now  say  to  you, 
that  whenever  Kansas  has  population  enough  for  a  slave  State  she  has  population 
enough  for  a  free  State.  I  have  never  yet  given  a  vote,  and  I  never  intend  to  record 
one,  making  an  odious  and  unjust  distinction  between  the  different  States  of  this 
Union.  I  hold  it  to  be  a  fundamental  principle  in  our  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment that  all  the  States  of  this  Union,  old  and  new,  free  and  slave,  stand  on  an  exact 
equaMty.  Equality  among  the  different  States  is  a  cardinal  principle  on  which  all 
•mr  institutions  rest.  Wherever,  therefore,  you  make  a  discrimination,  saying  to  a 
slave  State  that  it  shall  be  admitted  with  35,000  inhabitants,  and  to  a  free  State  that 
it  »hall  not  be  admitted  until  it  has  93,000  or  100,000  inhabitants,  you  are  throwing 
the  whole  weight  of  the  Federal  Government  into  the  scale  in  favor  of  one  class  of 
States  against  the  other.  Nor  would  I  on  the  other  hand  any  sooner  sanction  the 
doctrine  that  a  free  State  could  be  admitted  into  the  Union  with  35,000  people, 
while  a  slave  State  was  kept  out  until  it  had  93,000.  I  have  always  declared  in  the 
Senate  my  willingness,  and  I  am  willing  now  to  adopt  the  rule,  that  no  Territory 
shall  ever  become  a  State,  until  it  has  the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Con- 
gress, according  to  the  then  existing  ratio.  But  while  I  have  always  been,  arid  am 
now  willing  to  adopt  that  general  rule,  I  was  not  willing  and  would  not  consent  to 
make  an  exception  of  Kansas,  as  a  punishment  for  her  obstinacy,  in  demanding  the 
right  to  do  as  she  pleased  in  the  formation  of  her  Constitution.  It  is  proper  that  I 


172 

should  remark  here,  that  my  opposition  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  did  not  rest 
upon  the  peculiar  position  taken  by  Kansas  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  I  held  then, 
and  hold  now,  that  if  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  slave  State,  it  is  their  right  to 
make  one  arid  be  received  into  the  Union  under  it ;  if,  on  the  contrary,  they  want  a 
free  State,  it  is  their  right  to  have  it,  and  no  man  should  ever  oppose  their  admission 
because  they  ask  it  under  the  one  or  the  other.  I  hold  to  that  great  principle  of 
self-government  which  asserts  the  right  of  every  people  to  decide  for  themselves  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  domestic  institutions  arid  fundamental  law  under  which 
tlit.  y  are  to  live. 

The  effort  has  been  and  is  now  being  made  in  this  State  by  certain  postmasters 
and  other  Federal  office-holders,  to  make  a  test  of  faith  on  the  support  of  the  English 
bill.  These  men  are  now  making  speeches  all  over  the  State  against  me  and  in 
favor  of  Lincoln,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  because  I  would  not  sanction  a  dis- 
crimination between  slave  and  free  States  by  voting  for  the  English  bill.  But  while, 
that  bill  is  made  a  test  in  Illinois  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  up  the  Democratic  or- 
ganization in  this  State,  how  is  it  in  the  other  States?  Go  to  Indiana,  and  there  you 
find  English  himself,  the  author  of  the  English  bill,  who  is  a  candidate  for  re-elec- 
tion to  Congress,  has  been  forced  by  public  opinion  to  abandon  his  own  darling 
project,  and  to  give  a  promise  that  he  will  vote  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  at  once, 
whenever  she  forms  a  Constitution  in  pursuance  of  law,  and  ratifies  it  by  a  majority 
vote  of  her  people.  Not  only  is  this  the  case  with  English  himself,  but  I  am  in- 
formed that  every  Democratic  candidate  for  Congress  in  Indiana  takes  the  same 
ground.  Pass  to  Ohio,  and  there  you  find  that  Groesbeck,  and  Pendleton,  and  Cox, 
and  all  the  other  anti-Lecompton  men  who  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  me 
against  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  but  voted  for  the  English  bill,  now  repudiate  it 
and  take  the  same  ground  that  I  do  on  that  question.  So  it  is  with  the  Joneses  and 
others  of  Pennsylvania,  and  so  it  is  with  every  other  Lecompton  Democrat  in  the 
free  States.  They  now  abandon  even  the  English  bill,  and  come  back  to  the  true 
platform  which  I  proclaimed  at  the  time  in  the  Senate,  and  upon  which  the  Democ- 
racy of  Illinois  now  stand.  And  yet,  notwithstanding  the  fact,  that  every  Lecomp- 
ton and  anti-Lecompton  Democrat  in  the  free  States  has  abandoned  the  English  bill, 
you  are  told  that  it  is  to  be  made  a  test  upon  me,  while  the  power  and  patronage  of 
the  Government  are  all  exerted  to  elect  men  to  Congress  in  the  other  States  who 
occupy  the  same  position  with  reference  to  it  that  I  do.  It  seems  that  my  political 
offense  consists  in  the  fact  that  I  first  did  not  vote  for  the  English  bill,  and  thus 
pledge  myself  to  keep  Kansas  out  of  the  Union  until  she  has  a  population  of 
93,4*20,  and  then  return  home,  violate  that  pledge,  repudiate  the  bill,  and  take  the 
opposite  ground.  If  I  had  done  this,  perhaps  the  Administration  would  now  be  ad- 
vo  siting  my  re-election,  as  it  is  that  of  the  others  who  have  pursued  this  course.  I 
did  not  choose  to  give  that  pledge,  for  the  reason  that  I  did  not  intend  to  carry  out 
thai  principle.  I  never  will  consent,  for  the  sake  of  conciliating  the  frowns  of  power, 
to  pledge  myself  to  do  that  which  I  do  not  intend  to  perform.  I  now  submit 
the  question  to  you  as  my  constituency,  whether  I  was  not  right,  first,  in  resisting 
the  adoption  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution ;  and  secondly,  in  resisting  the  English 
bill.  I  repeat,  that  I  opposed  the  Lecompton  Constitution  because  it  was  not  the 
act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  did  not  embody  their  will.  I  denied  the 
right  of  any  power  on  earth,  under  our  system  of  Government,  to  force  a  Constitu- 
tion on  an  unwilling  people.  There  was  a  time  when  some  men  could  pretend  to 
believe  that  the  Lecompton  Constitution  embodied  the  will  of  the  people  of  Kansas, 
but  that  time  has  passed.  The  question  was  referred  to  the  people  of  Kansas  under 
the  English  bill  last  August,  and  then,  at  a  fair  election,  they  rejected  the  Lecomp- 
ton Constitution  by  a  vote  of  from  eight  to  ten  against  it  to  one  in  its  favor.  Since 
it  has  been  voted  down  by  so  overwhelming  a  majority,  no  man  can  pretend  that  it 
was  the  act  and  deed  of  that  people.  I  submit  the  question  to  you  whether  or  not, 
if  it  had  not  been  for  me,  that  Constitution  would  have  been  crammed  down  the 
throats  of  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  consent.  While  at  least  ninety -nine 


173 

out  of  every  hundred  people  here  present,  agree  that  I  was  right  in  defeating  that 
project,  yet  my  enemies  use  the  fact  that  I  did  defeat  it  by  doing  right,  to  break  me 
down  and  put  another  man  in  the  United  States  in  my  place.  The  very  men  who 
acknowledge  that  I  was  right  in  defeating  Lecompton,  now  form  an  alliance  with 
Federal  office-holders,  professed  Lecompton  men,  to  defeat  me,  because  I  did  right. 
My  political  opponent,  Mr.  Lincoln,  has  no  hope  on  earth,  and  has  never  dreamed  that 
he  had  a  chance  of  success,  were  it  not  for  the  aid  that  he  is  receiving  from  Federal 
office-holders,  who  are  using  their  influence  and  the  patronage  of  the  Government 
against  me  in  revenge  for  my  having  defeated  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  What 
do  you  Republicans  think  of  a  political  organization  that  will  try  to  make  an  unholy 
and  unnatural  combination  with  its  professed  foes  to  beat  a  man  merely  because  he 
has  done  right  ?  You  know  such  is  the  fact  with  regard  to  your  own  party.  You 
know  that  the  <ix  of  decapitation  is  suspended  over  every  man  in  office  in  Illinois,  and 
the  terror  of  proscription  is  threatened  every  Democrat  by  the  present  Administra- 
tion, unless  he  supports  the  Republican  ticket  in  preference  to  my  Democratic  asso- 
ciates and  myself.  I  could  find  an  instance  in  the  postmaster  of  the  city  of  Gales- 
burgh,  and  in  every  other  postmaster  in  this  vicinity,  all  of  whom  have  been  stricken 
down  simply  because  they  discharged  the  duties  of  their  offices  honestly,  and  supported 
the  regular  Democratic  ticket  in  this  State  in  the  right.  The  Republican  party  is  avail- 
ing itself  of  every  unworthy  means  in  the  present  contest  to  carry  the  election,  be- 
cause its  leaders  know  that  if  they  let  this  chance  slip  they  will  never  have  another, 
and  their  hopes  of  making  this  a  Republican  State  will  be  blasted  forever. 

Now,  let  me  ask  you  whether  the  country  has  any  interest  in  sustaining  this  or- 
ganization, known  as  the  Republican  party.  That  party  is  unlike  all  other  political 
organizations  in  this  country.  All  other  parties  have  been  national  in  their  charac- 
ter— have  avowed  their  principles  alike  in  the  slave  and  free  States,  in  Kentucky  as 
well  as  Illinois,  in  Louisiana  as  well  as  in  Massachusetts.  Such  was  the  case  with 
the  old  Whig  party,  and  such  was  and  is  the  case  with  the  Democratic  party. 
Whigs  and  Democrats  could  proclaim  their  principles  boldly  and  fearlessly  in  the 
North  and  in  the  South,  in  the  East  and  in  the  West,  wherever  the  Constitution 
ruled  and  the  American  flag  waved  over  American  soil. 

But  now  you  have  a  sectional  organization,  a  party  which  appeals  to  the  North- 
ern section  of  the  Union  against  the  Southern,  a  party  which  appeals  to  Northern 
passion,  Northern  pride,  Northern  ambition,  and  Northern  prejudices,  against 
Southern  people,  the  Southern  States,  and  Southern  institutions.  The  leaders  of 
that  party  hope  that  they  will  be  able  to  unite  the  Northern  States  in  one  great  sec- 
tional party,  and  inasmuch  as  the  North  is  the  strongest  section,  that  they  will  thus 
be  enabled  to  out  vote,  conquer,  govern,  and  control  the  South.  Hence  you  find 
that  they  now  make  speeches  advocating  principles  and  measures  which  cannot  be 
defended  in  any  slavenolding  State  of  this  Union.  Is  there  a  Republican  residing 
in  Galesburgh  who  can  travel  into  Kentucky  and  carry  his  principles  with  him  across 
the  Ohio?  What  Republican  from  Massachusetts  can  visit  the  Old  Dominion  with- 
out leaving  his  principles  behind  him  when  he  crosses  Mason  and  Dixon's  line? 
Permit  me  to  say  to  you  in  perfect  good  humor,  but  in  all  sincerity,  that  no  politi- 
cal creed  is  sound  which  cannot  be  proclaimed  fearlessly  in  every  State  of  this  Union 
where  the  Federal  Constitution  is  not  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  Not  only  is 
this  Republican  party  unable  to  proclaim  its  principles  alike  in  the  North  and  in  the 
South,  in  the  free  States  and  in  the  slave  States,  but  it  cannot  even  proclaim  them 
in  the  same  forms  and  give  them  the  same  strength  and  meaning  in  all  parts  of  the 
same  State.  My  friend  Lincoln  finds  it  extremely  difficult  to  manage  a  debate  in 
the  center  part  of  the  State,  where  there  is  a  mixture  of  men  from  the  North  and 
the  South.  In  the  extreme  Northern  part  of  Illinois  he  can  proclaim  as  bold 
and  radical  Abolitionism  as  ever  Giddings,  Lovejoy,  or  Garrison  enunciated,  but 
when  he  gets  down  a  little  further  South  he  claims  that  he  is  an  old  line  Whig,  a 
disciple  of  Henry  Clay,  and  declares  that  he  still  adheres  to  the  old  line  Whig  creed, 
and  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  Abolitionism,  or  negro  equality,  or  negro  citi- 
12 


174 

zenship.  I  once  before  hinted  this  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  a  public  speech,  and  at 
Charleston  he  defied  me  to  show  that  there  was  any  difference  between  his  speeches 
in  the  North  and  in  the  South,  and  that  they  were  not  in  strict  harmony.  I  will  now 
call  your  attention  to  two  of  them,  and  you  can  then  say  whether  you  would  be  apt 
to  believe  that  the  same  man  ever  uttered  both.  In  a  speech  in  reply  to  me  at  Chi- 
cago in  July  last,  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  speaking  of  the  equality  of  the  negro  wan  tlnv 
white  man.  used  the  following  language  : 

"  I  should  like  to  know,  if  taking  this  old  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  de- 
clares that  all  men  are  equal  upon  principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it,  where  will 
it  stop  ?  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  may  not  another  man  say 
it  does  not  mean  another  man  ?  If  the  Declaration  is  not  the  truth,  let  us  get  thn 
statute  book  in  which  we  find  it  and  tear  it  out.  Who  is  so  bold  as  to  do  it  ?  If  it. 
is  not  true,  let  us  tear  it  out." 

You  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  there  proposed  that  if  tke  doctrine  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  declaring  all  men  to  be  born  equal,  did  not  include  the  negro  and 
put  him  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man,  that  we  should  take  the  statute  book  and 
tear  it  out.  He  there  took  the  ground  that  the  negro  race  is  included  in  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence  as  the  equal  of  the  white  race,  and  that  there  could  be  no 
such  thing  as  a  distinction  in  the  races,  making  one  superior  and  the  other  inferior. 
I  read  now  from  the  same  speech : 

"  My  friends  [he  says],  I  have  detained  you  about  as  long  as  I  desire  to  do,  and 
I  have  only  to  say  let  us  discard  all  this  quibbling  about  this  man  and  the  other 
man — this  race  and  that  race  and  the  other  race  being  inferior,  and  therefore 
they  must  be  placed  in  an  inferior  position,  discarding  our  standard  that  we  have 
left  us.  Let  us  discard  all  these  things,  and  unite  as  one  people  throughout  this 
land,  until  we  shall  once  more  stand  up  declaring  that  all  men  are  created  equal." 

[u  That's  right,"  etc.] 

Yes,  I  have  no  doubt  that  you  think  it  is  right,  but  the  Lincoln  men  down  in 
Coles,  Tazewell  and  Sangamon  counties  do  not  think  it  is  right.  In  the  conclusion 
of  the  same  speech,  talking  to  the  Chicago  Abolitionists,  he  said :  "  I  leave  you, 
hoping  that  the  lamp  of  liberty  will  bum  in  your  bosoms  until  there  shall  no  longer 
be  a  doubt  that  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal."  [ "  Good,  good."]  Well, 
you  say  good  to  that,  and  you  are  going  to  vote  for  Lincoln  because  he  holds 
that  doctrine.  I  will  not  blame  you  for  supporting  him  on  that  ground,  but  I  will 
show  you  in  immediate  contrast  with  that  doctrine,  what  Mr.  Lincoln  said  down 
in  Egypt  in  order  to  get  votes  in  that  locality  where  they  do  not  hold  to  such  a 
doctrine.  In  a  joint  discussion  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself,  at  Charleston,  I 
think,  on  the  18th  of  last  month,  Mr.  Lincoln,  referring  to  this  subject,  used  the  fol- 
lowing language : 

"  I  will  say  then,  that  I  am  not  nor  never  have  been  in  favor  of  bringing  about 
in  any  way  the  social  and  political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races  ;  that  I 
am  not  nor  never  have  been  in  favor  of  making  voters  of  the  free  negroes,  or 
jurors,  or  qualifying  them  to  hold  office,  or  having  them  to  marry  with  white  peo- 
ple. I  will  say  in  addition,  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  white 
ancl  black  race?,  which,  I  suppose,  will  forever  forbid  the  two  races  living  together 
upon  terms  of  social  and  political  equality,  and  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live, 
that  while  they  do  remain  together,  there  must  be  the  position  of  superior  and  in- 
ferior, that  I  as  much  as  any  other  man  am  in  favor  of  the  superior  position  being 
assigned  to  the  white  man." 

[  "  Good  for  Lincoln."] 

Fellow-citizens,  here  you  find  men  hurraing  for  Lincoln  and  saying  that  he  did 
right,  when  in  one  part  of  the  State  he  stood  up  for  negro  equality,  and  in  an- 
other part  for  political  effect,  discarded  the  doctrine  and  declared  that  there  al- 
ways must  be  a  superior  and  inferior  race.  Abolitionists  up  north  are  expected 
and  required  to  vote  for  Lincoln  because  he  goes  for  the  equality  of  the  races, 
holding  that  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence  the  white  man  and  the  negro 

O  <f  ,  .  ,    ,      .'  .  *  f* 


175 

were  created  equal,  and  endowed  by  the  Divine  law  with  that  equality,  ami  down 
south  lie  tells  the  old  Whigs,  the  Keniuckians,  Virginians,  and  Tenne^seeans,  that 
there  is  a  physical  difference  in  the  races, making  one  superior  and  the  other  in- 
ferior, and  that  he  is  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  superiority  of  the  white  race  over 
the  negro.  Now,  how  can  you  reconcile  those  two  positions  of  Mr.  Lincoln  ?  He 
is  to  be  voted  for  in  the  south  as  a  pro-slavery  man,  and  he.  .is  to  be  voted  for  in  the 
north  as  an  Abolitionist.  Up  here  he  thinks  it  is  all  nonsense  to  talk  about  a  differ- 
ence between  the  races,  and  says  that  we  must  "  discard  all  quibbling  about  this  race 
and  that  race  and  the  other  race  being  inferior,  and  therefore  they  must  be  placed  in 
un  inferior  position.*'  Down  south  he  makes  this  **  quibble  "  about  this  race  and  tliat 
ruce  ?.nd  the  other  race  being  inferior  as  the  creed  of  his  party,  and  declares  that  tho 
iiegr:  can  never  be  elevated  to  the  position  of  the  white  man.  You  find  that  his  politi- 
cal meetings  are  called  by  different  names  in  different  counties  in  the  State.  Here  they 
arc  called  Republican  meetings,  but  in  old  Tazewell,  where  Lincoln  made  a  speech 
last  Tuesday,  he  did  not  address  a  Republican  meeting,  but  "  a  grand  rally  of  the 
Lincoln  men."  There  are  very  few  Republicans  there,  because  Tazewell  county  ^s 
filled  with  old  Virginians  and  Ken  tuck  ians,  all  of  whom  are  Whigs  or  Democrats,  and 
if  Mr.  Lincoln  had  called  an  Abolition  or  Republican  meeting  there,  he  would  not  gel 
many  votes.  Go  down  into  Kgypt  and  you  find  that  he  and  his  party  are  operat- 
ing under  an  alias  there,  which  his  friend  Trumbull  has  given  them,  in  order  that 
they  may  cheat  the  people.  When  1  was  down  in  Monroe  county  a  few  weeks  ago 
addressing  the  people,  I  saw  handbills  posted  announcing  that  Mr.  Trnrabull  was  go-: 
ing  to  speak  in  behalf  of  Lincoln,  and  what  do  you  think  the  name  of  his  party  was 
there  ?  Why  the  "  Free  Democracy."  Mr.  Trumbull  and  Mr.  Jehu  Baker  were 
announced  to  address  the  Free  Democracy  of  Monroe  county,  and  the  bill  was 
signed  u  Many  Free  Democrats."  The  reason  that  Lincoln  and  his  party  adopted 
the  name  of  "  Free  Democracy "  down  there  was  because  Monroe  county  has  al- 
ways been  an  old-fashioned  Democratic  county,  and  hence  it  was  necessary  to  make 
the  people  believe  that  they  were  Democrats,  sympathized  with  them,  and  were  fight- 
ing for  Lincoln  as  Democrats.  Come  up  to  Springfield,  where  Lincoln  now  lives 
and  always  has  lived,  and  you  find  that  the  Convention  of  his  party  which  assembled 
to  nominate  candidates  for  Legislature,  who  are  expected  to  vote  for  him  if  elected, 
dare  not  adopt  the  name  of  Republican,  but  assembled  under  the  title  of  "  all  op- 
posed to  the  Democracy."  Thus  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln's  creed  cannot  travel 
through  even  one  half  of  the  counties  of  this  State,  but  that  it  changes  its  hues 
and  becomes  lighter  and  lighter,  as  it  travels  from  the  extreme  north,  until  it  is  near- 
ly white,  when  it  reaches  the  extreme  south  end  of  the  State.  I  ask  you,  my  friends, 
why  cannot  Republicans  avow  their  principles  alike  every  where  ?  I  would  despise 
myself  if  I  thought  that  I  was  procuring  your  votes  by  concealing  my  opinions, 
and  by  avowing  one  set  of  principles  in  one  part  of  the  State,  and  a  different  set 
in  another  part.  If  I  do  not  truly  and  honorably  represent  your  feelings  and  prin- 
ciples, then  I  ought  not  to  be  your  Senator ;  and  I  will  never  conceal  my  opinions, 
or  modify  or  change  them  a  hair's  breadth  in  order  to  get  votes.  I  tell  you  that  this 
Chicago  doctrine  of  Lincoln's — declaring  that  the  negro  and  the  white-  man  are  made 
equal  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  by  Divine  Providence — is  a  mon- 
strous heresy.  The  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  never  dreamed  of 
the  negro  when  they  were  writing  that  document.  They  referred  to  white  men, 
to  men  of  European  birth  and  European  descent,  when  they  declared  the  equality 
of  all  men.  I  see  a  gentleman  there  in  the  crowd  shaking  his  head.  Let  ine 
remind  him  that  when  Thomas  Jefferson  wrote  that  document,  he  was  the  owner, 
and  BO  continued  until  his  death,  of  a  large  number  of  slaves.  Did  he  intend  to  say 
in  that  Declaration,  that  his  negro  slaves,  which  he  held  and  treated  as  property, 
were  created  his  equals  by  Divine  law,  and  that  he  was  violating  the  law  of  God 
every  day  of  his  life  by  holding  them  as  slaves  ?  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
when  that  Declaration  was  put  forth,  every  one  of  the  thirteen  Colonies  were  slave- 
holding  Colonies,  and  every  man  who  signed  that  instrument  represented  a  slave 


170 

holding  constituency.  Recollect,  also,  that  no  one  of  them  emancipated  his  slaves, 
much  less  put  them  on  an  equality  with  himself,  after  he  signed  the  Declaration.  On 
the  contrary,  they  all  continued  to  hold  their  negroes  as  slaves  during  the  revolution- 
ary war.  Now,  do  you  believe — are  you  willing  to  have  it  said — that  every  man 
who  signed  the  Declaration  of  Independence  declared  the  negro  his  equal,  and  then 
was  hypocrite  enough  to  continue  to  hold  him  as  a  slave,  in  violation  or  what  he  be- 
lieved to  be  the  Divine  law  ?  And  yet  when  you  say  that  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence includes  the  negro,  you  charge  the  signers  of  it  with  hypocrisy. 

I  say  to  you,  frankly,  that  in  my  opinion,  this  Government  was  made  by  our  fathers 
on  the  white  basis.  It  was  made  by  white  men  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and 
their  posterity  forever,  and  was  intended  to  be  administered  by  white  men  in  all  time 
to  come.  But  while  I  hold  that  under  our  Constitution  and  political  system  the  ne- 
gro is  not  a  citizen,  cannot  be  a  citizen,  and  ought  not  to  be  a  citizen,  it  does  notfol« 
low  by  any  means  that  he  should  be  a  slave.  On  the  contrary  it  does  follow  that  the 
negro,  as  an  interior  race,  ought  to  possess  every  right,  every  privilege,  every  immu- 
nity which  he  can  safely  exercise  consistent  with  the  safety  of  the  society  in  which 
he  lives.  Humanity  requires,  and  Christianity  commands,  that  you  shall  extend  to 
every  inferior  being,  and  every  dependent  being,  all  the  privileges,  immunities  and 
advantages  which  can  be  granted  to  them  consistent  with  the  safety  of  society.  If 
you  ask  me  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  privileges,  I  answer  that  that  is  a  ques- 
tion which  the  people  of  each  State  must  decide  for  themselves.  Illinois  has  decided 
that  question  for  herself.  We  have  said  that  in  this  State  the  negro  shall  not  be 
a  slave,  nor  shall  he  be  a  citizen.  Kentucky  holds  a  different  doctrine.  New  York 
holds  one  different  from  either,  and  Maine  one  different  from  all.  Virginia,  in  her 
policy  on  this  question,  differs  in  many  respects  from  the  others,  and  so  on,  until 
there  is  hardly  two  States  whose  policy  is  exactly  alike  in  regard  to  the  relation 
of  the  white  man  and  the  negro.  Nor  can  you  reconcile  them  and  make  them  alike. 
Each  State  must  do  as  it  pleases.  Illinois  had  as  much  right  to  adopt  the  policy 
which  we  have  on  that  subject  as  Kentucky  had  to  adopt  a  different  policy.  The 
great  principle  of  this  Government  is,  that  each  State  has  the  right  to  do  as  it 
pleases  on  all  these  questions,  and  no  other  State,  or  power  on  earth  has  the  right 
to  interfere  with  us,  or  complain  of  us  merely  because  our  system  differs  from 
theirs.  In  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850,  Mr.  Clay  declared  that  this  great 
principle  ought  to  exist  in  the  Territories  as  well  as  in  the  States,  and  I  reasserted 
his  doctrine  in  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  in  1854. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  be  made  to  understand,  and  those  who  are  determined  to 
vote  for  him,  no  matter  whether  he  is  a  pro-slavery  man  in  the  south  and  a  negro 
equality  advocate  in  the  north,  cannot  be  made  to  understand  how  it  is  that  in  a 
Territory  the  people  can  do  as  they  please  on  the  slavery  question  under  the  Dred 
Scott  decision.  Let  us  see  whether  I  cannot  explain  it  to  the  satisfaction  of  all 
impartial  men.  Chief  Justice  Taney  has  said  in  his  opinion  in  the  Dred  Scott  case, 
that  a  negro  slave  being  property,  stands  on  an  equal  footing  with  other  prop- 
erty, and  that  the  owner  may  carry  them  into  United  States  territory  the  same 
as  he  does  other  property.  Suppose  any  two  of  you,  neighbors,  should  conclude 
to  go  to  Kansas,  one  carrying  $100,000  worth  of  negro  slaves  and  the  other 
$100,000  worth  of  mixed  merchandise,  including  quantities  of  liquors.  You  both 
agree  that  under  that  decision  you  may  carry  your  property  to  Kansas,  but  when 
you  get  it  there,  the  merchant  who  is  possessed  of  the  liquors  is  met  by  the 
Maine  liquor  law,  which  prohibits  the  sale  or  use  of  his  property,  and  the  owner 
of  the  slaves  is  met  by  equally  unfriendly  legislation,  which  makes  his  property 
worthless  after  he  gets  it  there.  What  is  the  right  to  carry  your  property  into 
the  Territory  worth  to  either,  when  unfriendly  legislation  in  the  Territory  renders 
it  worthless  after  you  get  it  there  ?  The  slaveholder  when  he  gets  his  slaves 
there  finds  that  there  is  no  local  law  to  protect  him  in  holding  them,  no  slave  code, 
no  police  regulation  maintaining  and  supporting  him  in  his  right,  and  he  discovers  at 
once  that  the  absence  of  such  friendly  legislation  excludes  his  property  from  the 


177 

Territory,  just  as  irresistibly  as  if  there  was  a  positive  Constitutional  prohibition 
excluding  it.  Thus  you  find  it  is  with  any  kind  of  property  in  a  Territory,  it 
depends  for  its  protection  on  the  local  and  municipal  law.  If  the  people  of  a  Terri- 
tory want  slavery,  they  make  friendly  legislation  to  introduce  it,  but  if  they  do  not 
want  it,  they  withhold  all  protection  from  it,  and  then  it  cannot  exist  there.  Such 
was  the  \  lew  taken  on  the  subject  by  different  Southern  men  when  the  Nebraska  bill 
passed.  See  the  speech  of  Mr.  Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  the  present  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  Congress,  made  at  that  time,  and  there  you  will  find 
this  whole  doctrine  argued  out  at  full  length.  Read  the  speeches  of  other  Southern 
Congressmen,  Senators  and  Representatives,  made  in  1854,  and  you  will  find  that 
they  took  the  same  view  of  the  subject  as  Mr.  Orr — that  slavery  could  never  be 
forced  on  a  people  who  did  not  want  it.  I  hold  that  in  this  country  there  is  no 
power  on  the  face  of  the  globe  that  can  force  any  institution  on  an  unwilling  people. 
The  great  fundamental  principle  of  our  Government  is  that  the  people  of  each  State 
and  each  Territory  shall  be  left  perfectly  free  to  decide  for  themselves  what  shall  be 
the  nature  and  character  of  their  institutions.  When  this  Government  was  made,  it 
was  based  on  that  principle.  At  the  time  of  its  formation  there  were  twelve  slave- 
holding  States  and  one  free  State  in  this  Union.  Suppose  this  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lin- 
coln and  the  Republicans,  of  uniformity  of  laws  of  all  the  States  on  the  subject  of 
fclavery,  had  prevailed ;  suppose  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  had  been  a  member  of  the 
Convention  which  framed  the  Constitution,  and  that  he  had  risen  in  that  august 
body,  and  addressing  the  father  of  his  country,  had  said  as  he  did  at  Spring- 
field : 

''A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I  believe  this  Government  cannot 
endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dis- 
solved— I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided 
It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other." 

AVhat  do  you  think  would  have  been  the  result?  Suppose  he  had  made  that  Con- 
vention believe  that  doctrine  and  they  had  acted  upon  it,  what  do  you  think  would 
have  been  the  result  ?  Do  you  believe  that  the  one  free  State  would  have  outvoted 
the  twelve  slaveholding  States,  and  thus  abolish  slavery?  On  the  contrary,  would 
not  the  twelve  slaveholding  States  have  outvoted  the  one  free  State,  and  under  his 
doctrine  have  fastened  slavery  by  an  irrevocable  Constitutional  provision  upon  every 
inch  of  the  American  Republic?  Thus  you  see  that  the  doctrine  he  now  advocates, 
if  proclaimed  at  the  beginning  of  the  Government,  would  have  established  slavery 
every  where  throughout  the  American  continent,  and  are  you  willing,  now  that  we 
have  the  majority  section,  to  exercise  a  power  which  we  never  would  have  submit- 
ted  to  when  we  were  in  the  minority  ?  If  the  Southern  States  had  attempted  to  con- 
trol our  institutions,  and  make  the  States  all  slave  when  they  had  the  power,  I  ask 
would  you  have  submitted  to  it?  If  you  would  not,  are  you  willing  now,  that  we 
have  become  the  strongest  under  that  great  principle  of  self-government  that  allows 
each  State  to  do  as  it  pleases,  to  attempt  to  control  the  Southern  institutions?  Then, 
my  friends,  I  say  to  you  that  there  is  but  one  patli  of  peace  in  tin's  Republic,  and 
that  is  to  administer  this  Government  as  our  fathers  made  it,  divided  into  free  and 
slave  States,  allowing  each  State  to  decide  for  itself  whether  it  wants  slavery  or  not. 
If  Illinois  will  settle  the  slavery  question  for  herself,  and  mind  her  own  business 
and  let  her  neighbors  alone,  we  will  be  at  peace  with  Kentucky,  and  every  other 
Southern  State.  If  every  other  State  in  the  Union  will  do  the  same  there  will  be 
peace  between  the  North  and  the  South,  and  in  the  whole  Union. 


178 


MR,  LINCOLN'S  REPLY. 

MY  FELLOW-CITIZENS  :  A  very  large  portion  of  the  speech  which  Judge  Doug- 
lias  has  addressed  to  you  has  previously  been  delivered  and  put  in  print.  I  do  not 
mean  that  for  a  hit  upon  the  Judge  at  all.  If  I  had  not  been  interrupted,  I  was  going 
to  eay  that  such  an  answer  as  I  was  able  to  make  to  a  very  large  portion  of  it,  had 
already  been  more  than  once  made  and  published.  There  has  been  an  opportunity 
afforded  to  the  public  to  see  our  respective  views  upon  the  topics  discussed  in  a  large 
portion  of  the  speech  which  he  has  just  delivered.  I  make  these  remarks  for  the 
purpose  of  excusing  myself  for  not  passing  over  the  entire  ground  that  the  Judge 
lias  traversed.  I  however  desire  to  take  up  some  of  the  points  that  he  has  attended 
to,  and  ask  your  attention  to  them,  and  I  shall  follow  him  backwards  upon  some 
notes  which  I  have  taken,  reversing  the  order  by  beginning  where  he  con- 
cluded. 

The  Judge  has  alluded  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  arid  insisted  that 
negroes  are  not  included  in  that  Declaration ;  and  that  it  is  a  slander  upon  the  framers 
of  that  instrument,  to  suppose  that  negroes  were  meant  therein  ;  and  he  asks  you : 
1$  it  possible  to  believe  that  Mr.  Jefferson,  who  penned  the  immortal  paper,  could 
have  supposed  himself  applying  the  language  of  that  instrument  to  the  negro  race, 
and  yet  held  a  portion  of  that  race  in  slavery  ?  Would  he  not  at  once  have  freed 
them?  I  only  have  to  remark  upon  this  part  of  the  Judge's  speech  (and  that, 
too,  very  briefly,  for  I  shall  not  detain  myself,  or  you,  upon  that  point  for  any  great 
length  of  time),  that  I  believe  the  entire  records  of  the  world,  from  the  date  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  up  to  within  three  years  ago,  may  be  searched  in  vain 
for  one  single  affirmation,  from  one  single  man,  that  the  negro  was  not  included  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence;  I  think  I  may  defy  Judge  Douglas  to  show  that 
he  ever  said  so,  that  Washington  ever  said  so,  that  any  President  ever  said  so,  that 
any  member  of  Congress  ever  said  so,  or  that  any  living  man  upon  the  whole  earth 
ever  said  so,  until  the  necessities  of  the  present  policy  of  the  Democratic  party,  in 
regard  to  slavery,  had  to  invent  that  affirmation.  And  I  will  remind  Judge 
Douglas  and  this  audience,  that  while  Mr.  Jefferson  was  the  owner  of  slaves,  as 
undoubtedly  he  was,  in  speaking  upon  this  very  subject,  he  used  the  strong  lan- 
guage that  "he  trembled  for  his  country  when  he  remembered  that  God  was  just;" 
and  I  will  offer  the  highest  premium  in  my  power  to  Judge  Douglas  if  he  will 
show  that  he,  in  all  his  life,  ever  uttered  a  sentimcut  at  all  akin  to  that  of 
Jefferson. 

The  next  thing  to  which  I  will  ask  your  attention  is  the  Judge's  comments  upon 
the  fact,  as  he  assumes  it  to  be,  that  we  cannot  call  our  public  meetings  ns  Republi- 
can meetings ;  and  he  instances  Tazewell  county  as  one  of  the  places  where  the 
friends  of  Lincoln  have  called  a  public  meeting  and  have  not  dared  to  name  it  a 
Republican  meeting.  He  instances  Monroe  county  as  another  where  Judge  Trum- 
bull  and  Jehu  Baker  addressed  the  persons  whom  the  Judge  assumes  to  be  the 
friendi  of  Lincoln,  calling  them  tho  "Free  Democracy."  I  have  the  honor  to  inform 
Judge  Douglas  that  he  spoke  in  that  very  county  of  Tazewell  last  Saturday, 
and  I  was  there  on  Tuesday  last,  and  when  he  spoke  there  he  spoke  under  a  call  not 
venturing  to  use  the  word  "Democrat."  [Turning  to  Judge  Douglas.]  What  think 
you  of  this? 

So  again,  there  is  another  thing  to  which  I  would  ask  the  Judge's  attention  upon 
this  subject.  In  the  contest  of  1856  his  party  delighted  to  call  themselves  together 
as  the  "National  Democracy,"  but  now,  if  there  should  be  a  notice  put  up  any  where 
for  a  meeting  of  the  "National  Democracy,"  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  would 
not  come.  They  would  not  suppose  themselves  invited.  They  would  understand 
that  it  was  a  call  for  those  hateful  postmasters  whom  he  talks  about. 

Now  a  few  words  in  regard  to  these  extracts  from  speeches  of  mine,  which 
Judge  Douglas  has  read  to  you,  and  which  he  supposes  are  in  very  great  contrast  to 


179 

each  other.  Those  speeches  have  been  before  the  public  for  a  considerable  time, 
ana"  if  they  have  any  inconsistency  in  them,  if  there  is  any  conflict  in  them,  the  pub- 
lic have  been  able  to  detect  it.  When  the  Judge  says,  in  speaking  on  this  subject, 
that  I  make  speeches  of  one  sort  for  the  people  of  the  northen  end  of  the  State, 
and  of  a  different  sort  for  the  southern  people,  lie  assumes  that  I  do  not  understand 
that  rny  speeches  will  be  put  in  print  and  read  north  and  south.  I  knew  all  the 
while  that  the  speech  that  I  made  at  Chicago,  and  the  one  I  made  at  Jonesboro  and 
the  one  at  Charleston,  would  all  be  put  in  print  and  all  the  reading  and  intelligent 
men  in  the  community  would  see  them  and  know  all  about  my  opinions.  And  I 
have  not  supposed,  and  do  not  now  suppose,  that  there  is  any  conflict  whatever 
between  them.  But  the  Judge  will  have  it  that  if  we  do  not  confess  that  there  is  a 
sort  of  inequality  between  the  white  and  black  races,  which  justifies  us  in, making 
them  slaves,  we  must,  then,  insist  that  there  is  a  degree  of  equality  that  requires  us 
to  make  them  our  wives.  Now,  I  have  all  the  while  taken  a  broad  distinction  in 
regard  to  that  matter ;  and  that  is  all  there  is  in  these  different  speeches  which  he 
arrays  here,  and  the  entire  reading  of  either  of  the  speeches  will  show  that  that  dis- 
tinction was  made.  Perhaps  by  taking  two  parts  of  the  same  speech,  he  could  have 
got  up  as  much  of  a  conflict  as  the  one  he  has  found.  I  have  all  the  while  main- 
tained, that  in  so  far  as  it  should  be  insisted  that  there  was  an  equality  between  the 
white  and  black  races  that  should  produce  a  perfect  social  and  political  equality,  it 
was  an  impossibility.  This  you  have  seen  in  my  printed  speeches,  and  with  it  I  have 
said,  that  in  their  right  to  "  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,"  as  proclaimed 
in  that  old  Declaration,  the  inferior  races  are  our  equals.  And  these  declarations 
I  have  constantly  made  in  reference  to  the  abstract  moral  question,  to  contemplate 
and  consider  when  we  are  legislating  about  any  new  country  which  is  not  already 
cursed  with  the  actual  presence  of  the  evil — slavery.  I  have  never  manifested  any 
impatience  with  the  necessities  that  spring  from  the  actual  presence  of  black  people 
amongst  us,  and  the  actual  existence  of  slavery  amongst  us  where  it  does  already  ex- 
ist ;  but  I  have  insisted  that,  in  legislating  for  new  countries,  where  it  does  not  exist, 
there  is  no  just  rule  other  than  that  of  moral  and  abstract  right !  With  reference  to 
those  new  countries,  those  maxims  as  to  the  right  of  a  people  to  "  life,  liberty  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness,"  were  the  just  rules  to  be  constantly  referred  to.  There  is 
no  misunderstanding  this,  except  by  men  interested  to  misunderstand  it.  I  take  it 
that  I  have  to  address  an  intelligent  and  reading  community,  who  will  peruse  what  I 
say,  weigh  it,  and  then  judge  whether  I  advance  improper  or  unsound  views,  or 
whether  I  advance  hypocritical,  and  deceptive,  and  contrary  views  in  different  por- 
tions of  the  country.  I  believe  myself  to  be  guilty  of  no  such  thing  as  the  latter, 
though,  of  course,  I  cannot  claim  that  I  am  entirely  free  from  all  error  in  the  opin- 
ions I  advance. 

The  Judge  has  also  detained  us  awhile  in  regard  to  the  distinction  between  his 
party  and  our  party.  His  he  assumes  to  be  a  national  party — ours  a  sectional  one. 
He  does  this  in  asking  the  question  whether  this  country  ha^  any  interest  in  the  main- 
tenance of  the  Republican  party  ?  He  assumes  that  our  party  is  altogether  sectional 
— that  the  party  to  which  he  adheres  is  national ;  and  the  argument  is,  that  no  party 
can  be  a  rightful  party — can  be  based  upon  rightful  principles — unless  it  can  an- 
nounce its  principles  every  where.  I  presume  that  Judge  Douglas  could  not  go  into 
Russia  and  announce  the  doctrine  of  our  national  Democracy ;  he  could  not  denonr-ee 
the  doctrine  of  kings  and  emperors  and  monarchies  in  Russia ;  and  it  may  be  true 
of  this  country,  that  in  some  places  we  may  not  be  able  to  proclaim  a  doctrine  as 
clearly  true  as  the  truth  of  Democracy,  because  there  is  a  section  so  directly  opposed 
to  it  that  they  will  not  tolerate  us  in  doing  so.  Is  it  the  true  test  of  the  soundness 
of  a  doctrine,  that  in  some  places  people  won't  let  you  proclaim  it  ?  Is  that  the  way 
to  test  the  truth  of  any  doctrine  ?  Why,  I  understood  that  at  one  time  the  people  of 
Chicago  would  not  let  Judge  Douglas  preach  a  certain  favorite  doctrine  of  his.  I 
commend  to  his  consideration  the  question,  whether  he  takes  that  as  a  test  of  the 
unsoundncss  of  what  he  wanted  to  preach. 


180 

There  is  another  thing  to  which  I  wish  to  ask  attention  for  a  little  while  on  this 
occasion.  What  has  always  been  the  evidence  brought  forward  to  prove  that  the 
Republican  party  is  a  sectional  party  ?  The  main  one  was  that  in  the  Southern  por- 
tion of  the  Union  the  people  did  not  let  the  Republicans  proclaim  their  doctrines 
amongst  them.  That  has  been  the  main  evidence  brought  forward — that  they  had 
no  supporters,  or  substantially  none,  in  the  slave  States.  The  South  have  not  taken 
hold  of  our  principles  as  we  announce  them;  nor  does  Judge  Douglas  now  grapple 
with  those  principles.  We  have  a  Republican  State  Platform,  laid  down  in  Spring- 
field in  June  last,  stating  our  position  all  the  way  through  the  questions  before  the 
country.  We  are  now  far  advanced  in  this  canvass.  Judge  Douglas  and  I  hare 
made  perhaps  forty  speeches  apiece,  and  we  have  now  for  the  fifth  time  met  face  to 
face  in  debate,  and  up  to  this  day  I  have  not  found  either  Judge  Douglas  or  any 
friend  of  his  taking  hold  of  the  Republican  platform  or  laying  his  finger  upon  any- 
thing in  it  that  is  wrong.  I  ask  you  all  to  recollect  that.  Judge  Douglas  tuins  away 
from  the  platform  of  principles  to  the  fact  that  he  can  find  people  somewhere  who 
will  not  allow  us  to  announce  those  principles.  If  he  had  great  confidence  that  our 
principles  were  wrong,  he  would  take  hold  of  them  and  demonstrate  them  to  be 
wrong.  But  he  does  not  do  so.  The  only  evidence  he  has  of  their  being  wrong  is 
in  the  ^act  that  there  are  people  who  won't  allow  us  to  preach  them.  I  ask  again  is 
that  the  way  to  test  the  soundness  of  a  doctrine  ? 

I  ask  his  attention  also  to  the  fact  that  by  the  rule  of  nationality  he  is  himself  fast 
becoming  sectional.  I  ask  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  his  speeches  would  not  go  as 
current  now  south  of  the  Ohio  river  as  they  have  formerly  gone  there.  I  ask  his 
attention  to  the  fact  that  he  felicitates  himself  to-day  that  all  the  Democrats  of  the 
free  States  are  agreeing  with  him,  while  he  omits  to  tell  us  that  the  Democrats  of 
any  slave  State  agree  with  him.  If  he  has  not  thought  of  this,  I  commend  to  his 
consideration  the  evidence  in  his  own  declaration,  on  this  day,  of  his  becoming  sec- 
tional too.  I  see  it  rapidly  approaching.  Whatever  may  be  the  result  of  this  ephe- 
meral contest  between  Judge  Douglas  and  myself,  I  see  the  day  rapidly  approaching 
when  his  pill  of  sectionalism,  which  he  has  been  thrusting  down  the  throats  of  Re- 
publicans for  yea'rs  past,  will  be  crowded  down  his  own  throat. 

Now  in  regard  to  what  Judge  Douglas  said  (in  the  beginning  of  his  speech)  about 
the  Compromise  of  1850,  containing  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  although  I 
have  often  presented  my  views  upon  that  subject,  yet  as  I  have  not  done  so  in  this 
canvass,  I  will,  if  you  please,  detain  you  a  little  with  them.  I  have  always  maintained, 
so  far  as  I  was  able,  that  there  was  nothing  of  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill  in 
the  Compromise  of  1850  at  all — nothing  whatever.  Wliere  can  you  find  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  Nebraska  bill  in  that  Compromise  ?  If  any  where,  in  the  two  pieces  of 
the  Compromise  organizing  the  Territories  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah.  It  was  ex- 
pressly provided  in  these  two  acts,  that,  when  they  came  to  be  admitted  into  the 
Union,  they  should  be  admitted  with  or  without  slavery,  as  they  should  choose,  by 
their  own  Constitutions.  Nothing  was  said  in  either  of  those  acts  as  to  what  was  to 
be  done  in  relation  to  slavery  during  the  territorial  existence  of  those  Territories, 
while  Henry  Clay  constantly  made  the  declaration  (Judge  Douglas  recognizing  him 
as  a  leader)  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  old  Mexican  laws  would  control  that  question 
during  the  territorial  existence,  and  that  these  old  Mexican  laws  excluded  slavery. 
How  can  that  be  used  as  a  principle  for  declaring  that  during  the  territorial  existence 
as  well  as  at  the  time  of  framing  the  Constitution,  the  people,  if  you  please,  might 
have  slaves  if  they  wanted  them  ?  I  am  not  discussing  the  question  whether  it  is 
right  or  wrong ;  but  how  are  the  New  Mexican  and  Utah  laws  patterns  for  the  Ne- 
braska bill  ?  I  maintain  that  the  organization  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  did  not 
establish  a  general  principle  at  all.  It  had  no  feature  of  establishing  a  general  prin- 
ciple. The  acts  to  which  I  have  referred  were  a  part  of  a  general  system  of  Com- 
promises. They  did  not  lay  down  what  was  proposed  as  a  regular  policy  for  the 
Territories ;  only  an  agreement  in  this  particular  case  to  do  in  that  way,  because 
other  things  were  done  that  were  to  be  a  compensation  for  it.  They  were  allowed 


181 

to  come  in  in  that  shape,  because  in  another  way  it  was  paid  for — considering  that  as  a 
part  of  that  system  of  measures  called  the  Compromise  of  1850,  which  finally  included 
half  a  dozen  acts.  It  included  the  admission  of  California  as  a  free  State,  which  waa 
kept  out  of  the  Union  for  half  a  year  because  it  had  formed  a  free  Constitution.  It 
included  the  settlement  of  the  boundary  of  Texas,  which  had  been  undefined  before, 
which  was  in  itself  a  slavery  question  ;  for,  if  you  pushed  the  line  farther  west,  you 
made  Texas  larger,  and  made  more  slave  Territory  ;  while,  if  you  drew  the  line  to- 
ward the  east,  you  narrowed  the  boundary  and  diminished  the  domain  of  slavery,  and 
by  so  much  increased  free  Territory.  It  included  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  in 
the  District  of  Columbia.  It  included  the  passage  of  a  new  Fugitive  Slave  law. 
AK  these  things  were  put  together,  and  though  passed  in  separate  acts,  were  never- 
theless in  legislation  (as  the  speeches  at  the  time  will  show),  made  to  depend  upon 
each  other.  Each  got  votes,  with  the  understanding  that  the  other  measures  were  to 
pass,  and  by  this  system  of  Compromise,  in  that  series  of  measures,  those  two  bills 
— the  New  Mexico  and  Utah  bills— -were  passed ;  and  I  say  for  that  reason  they 
could  not  be  taken  as  models,  framed  upon  their  own  intrinsic  principle,  for  all  fu* 
ture  Territories.  And  I  have  the  evidence  of  this  in  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas, 
a  year  afterward,  or  more  than  a  year  afterward,  perhaps,  when  he  first  introduced 
bills  for  the  purpose  of  framing  new  Territories,  did  not  attempt  to  follow  these  bills 
of  New  Mexico  and  Utah ;  and  even  when  he  introduced  this  Nebraska  bill,  I  think 
you  will  discover  that  he  did  not  exactly  follow  them.  But  I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  at 
great  length  upon  this  branch  of  the  discussion.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  a  thorough 
investigation  will  show  most  plainly  that  the  New  Mexico  and  Utah  bills  were  part 
of  a  system  of  Compromise,  and  not  designed  as  patterns  for  future  territorial  legis- 
lation ;  and  that  this  Nebraska  bill  did  not  follow  them  as  a  pattern  at  all. 

The  Judge  tells,  in  proceeding,  that  he  is  opposed  to  making  any  odious  distinc- 
tions between  free  and  slave  States.  I  am  altogether  unaware  that  the  Republicans 
are  in  favor  of  making  any  odious  distinctions  between  the  free  and  slave  States. 
But  there  still  is  a  difference,  I  think,  between  Judge  Douglas  and  the  Republicans 
in  this.  I  suppose  that  the  real  difference  between  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends, 
and  the  Republicans  on  the  contrary,  is,  that  the  Judge  is  not  in  favor  of  making  any 
difference  between  slavery  and  liberty — that  he  is  in  favor  of  eradicating,  of  pressing 
out  of  view,  the  questions  of  preference  in  this  country  for  free  or  slave  institutions ; 
and  consequently  every  sentiment  he  utters  discards  the  idea  that  there  is  any  wrong 
in  slavery.  Every  thing  that  emanates  from  him  or  his  coadjutors  in  their  course  of 
policy,  carefully  excludes  the  thought  that  there  is  any  thing  wrong  in  slavery.  All 
their  arguments,  if  you  will  consider  them,  will  be  seen  to  exclude  the  thought  that 
there  is  any  thing  whatever  wrong  in  slavery.  If  you  will  take  the  Judge's  speeches, 
and  select  the  short  and  pointed  sentences  expressed  by  him — as  his  declaration  that 
he  "  don't  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  up  or  down  " — you  will  see  at  once  that  this 
is  perfectly  logical,  if  you  do  not  admit  that  slavery  is  wrong.  If  you  do  admit  that 
it  is  wrong.  Judge  Douglas  cannot  logically  say  he  don't  care  whether  a  wrong  is 
voted  up  or  voted  down.  Judge  Douglas  declares  that  if  any  community  want  sla- 
very they  have  a  right  to  have  it.  He  can  say  that  logically,  if  he  says  that  there 
is  no  wrong  in  slavery  ;  but  if  you  admit  that  there  is  a  wrong  in  it,  he  cannot  logi- 
oall)  say  that  any  body  has  a  right  to  do  wrong.  He  insists  that,  upon  the  score  of 
equality,  the  owners  of  slaves  and  owners  of  property — of  horses  and  every  other 
sort  of  property — should  be  alike  and  hold  them  alike  in  a  new  Territory.  That  is 
perfectly  logical,  if  the  two  species  of  property  are  alike  and  are  equally  founded  in 
right.  But  if  you  admit  that  one  of  them  is  wrong,  you  cannot  institute  any  equali- 
ty between  right  and  wrong.  And  from  this  difference  of  sentiment — the  belief  on 
the  part  of  one  that  the  institution  is  wrong,  and  a  policy  springing  from  that  belief 
which  looks  to  the  arrest  of  the  enlargement  of  that  wrong ;  and  this  other  senti- 
ment, that  it  is  no  wrong,  and  a  policy  sprung  from  that  sentiment  which  will  toler- 
ate no  idea  of  preventing  that  wrong  from  growing  larger,  and  looks  to  there  never 
being  an  end  of  it  through  all  the  existence  of  things, — arises  the  real  difference  be- 


182 

tween  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Republicans  on  the 
other.  Now,  I  confess  myself  as  belonging  to  that  class  in  the  country  who  contem- 
plate slavery  as  a  moral,  social  and  political  evil,  having  due  regard  for  its  actual  ex- 
istence amongst  us  and  the  difficulties  of  getting  rid  of  it  in  any  satisfactory  way, 
and  to  all  the  Constitutional  obligations  which  have  been  thrown  about  it ;  but,  never- 
theless, desire  a  policy  that  looks  to  the  prevention  of  it  as  a  wrong,  and  looks  hope- 
fully to  the  time  when  as  a  wrong  it  may  come  to  an  end. 

Judge  Douglas  has  again,  for,  I  believe,  the  fifth  time,  if  not  the  seventh,  in  my 
presence,  reiterated  his  charge  of  a  conspiracy  or  combination  between  the  Na- 
tional Democrats  and  Republicans.  What  evidence  Judge  Douglas  has  upon  this 
subject  I  know  not,  inasmuch  as  he  never  favors  us  with  any.  I  have  said  upon  a 
former  occasion,  and  I  do  not  choose  to  suppress  it  now,  that  I  have  no  objection  to 
the  division  in  the  Judge's  party.  He  got  it  up  himself.  It  was  all  his  and  their 
work.  He  had,  I  think,  a  great  deal  more  to  $o  with  the  steps  that  led  to  the  Le- 
compton  Constitution  than  Mr.  Buchanan  had ;  though  at  last,  when  they  reached  it, 
they  quarreled  over  it,  and  their  friends  divided  upon  it.  I  am  very  free  to  confess 
to  Judge  Douglas  that  I  have  no  objection  to  the  division ;  but  1  defy  the  Judge  to 
show  any  evidence  that  I  have  in  any  way  promoted  that  division,  unless  he  insists 
on  being  a  witness  himself  in  merely  saying  so.  I  can  give  all  fair  friends  of  Judge 
Douglas  here  to  understand  exactly  the  view  that  Republicans  take  in  regard  to  that 
division.  Don't  you  remember  how  two  years  ago  the  opponents  of  the  Democratic 
party  were  divided  between  Fremont  and  Fillmore  ?  I  guess  you  do.  Any  Demo- 
crat who  remembers  that  division,  will  remember  also  that  he  was  at  the 
time  very  glad  of  it,  and  then  he  will  be  able  to  see  all  there  is  between  the  Na- 
tional Democrats  and  the  Republicans.  What  we  now  think  of  the  two  divisions  of 
Democrats,  you  then  thought  of  the  Fremont  and  Fillmore  divisions.  That  is  all 
there  is  of  it. 

But,  if  the  Judge  continues  to  put  forward  the  declaration  that  there  is  an  unholy 
and  unnatural  alliance  between  the  Republican  and  the  National  Democrats,  I  now 
want  to  enter  my  protest  against  receiving  him  as  an  entirely  competent  witness 
upon  that  subject.  I  want  to  call  to  the  Judge's  attention  an  attack  he  made  upon 
me  in  the  first  one  of  these  debates,  at  Ottawa,  on  the  21st  of  August.  In  order 
to  fix  extreme  Abolitionism  upon  me,  Judge  Douglas  read  a  set  of  resolutions  which 
he  declared  had  been  passed  by  a  Republican  State  Convention,  in  October,  1854, 
at  Springfield,  Illinois,  and  he  declared  I  had  taken  part  in  that  Convention.  It 
turned  out  that  although  a  few  men  calling  themselves  an  anti-Nebraska  State  Con- 
vention had  sat  at  Springfield  about  that  time,  yet  neither  did  I  take  any  part  in  it, 
nor  did  it  pass  the  resolutions  or  any  such  resolutions  as  Judge  Douglas  read.  So 
apparent  had  it  become  that  the  resolutions  which  he  read  had  not  been  passed  at 
Springfield  at  all,  nor  by  a  State  Convention  in  which  I  had  taken  part,  that  seven 
days  afterward,  at  Freeport,  Judge  Douglas  declared  that  he  had  been  misled  by 
Charles  II.  Lanphier,  editor  of  the  State  Register,  and  Thomas  L.  Harris,  member 
of  Congress  in  that  District,  and  he  promised  in  that  speech  that  when  he  went  to 
Springfield  he  would  investigate  the  matter.  Since  then  Judge  Douglas  has  been 
to  Springfield,  and  I  presume  has  made  the  investigation  ;  but  a  month  has  passed 
since  he  has  been  there,  and  so  far  as  I  know,  he  has  made  no  report  of  the  result 
of  his  investigation.  I  have  waited  as  I  think  sufficient  time  for  the  report  of  that 
investigation,  and  I  have  some  curiosity  to  see  and  hear  it.  A  fraud — an  absolute 
forgery  was  committed,  and  the  perpetration  of  it  was  traced  to  the  three — Lanphier, 
Harris  and  Douglas.  Whether  it  can  be  narrowed  in  any  way  so  as  to  exonerate 
any  one  of  them,  is  what  Judge  Douglas's  report  would  probably  show. 

It  is  true  that  the  set  of  resolutions  read  by  Judge  Douglas  were  published  in  the 
Illinois  State  Register  on  the  IGth  of  October,  1854,  as  being  the  resolutions  of  aa 
anti-Nebraska  Convention,  which  had  sat  in  that  same  month  of  October,  at  Spring- 
field. But  it  is  also  true  that  the  publication  in  the  Register  was  a  forgery  then, 
and  the  question  is  still  behind,  which  of  the  three,  if  not  all  of  them,  committed  that 


183 

forgery  ?  The  idea  that  it  was  done  by  mistake,  is  absurd.  The  article  in  the  Il- 
linois State  Register  contains  part  of  the  real  proceedings  of  that  Springfield  Conven- 
tion, showing  that  the  writer  of  the  article  had  the  real  proceedings  before  him,  and 
purposely  threw  out  the  genuine  resolutions  passed  by  the  Convention,  and  fraudu- 
lently substituted  the  others.  Lanphier  then,  as  now,  was  the  editor  of  the  Register, 
so  that  there  seems  to  be  but  little  room  for  his  escape.  But  then  it  is  to  be  borne 
in  mind  that  Lanphier  had  less  interest  in  the  object  of  that  forgery  than  either  of 
the  other  two.  The  main  object  of  that  forgery  at  that  time  was  to  beat  Yates  and 
elect  Harris  to  Congress,  and  that  object  was  known  to  be  exceedingly  dear  to 
Judge  Douglas  at  that  time.  Harris  and  Douglas  were  both  in  Springfield  when  the 
Convention  was  in  session,  and  although  they  both  left  before  the  fraud  appeared  in 
the  Register,  subsequent  events  show  that  they  have  both  had  their  eyes  fixed  upon 
that  Convention. 

The  fraud  having  been  apparently  successful  upon  the  occasion,  both  Hams  and 
Douglas  have  more  than  once  since  then  been  attempting  to  pat  it  to  new  uses.  As 
the  fisherman's  wife,  whose  drowned  husband  was  brought  home  with  his  body  full 
of  eel?;,  said  when  she  was  asked,  "What  was  to  be  done  with  him?"  "  Take  the 
eels  out  and  set  him  again ; "  so  Harris  and  Douglas  have  shown  a  disposition  to 
take  the  eels  out  of  that  stale  fraud  by  which  they  gained  Harris's  election,  and  set 
the  fraud  again  more  than  once.  On  the  9th  of  July,  1856,  Douglas  attempted  a 
repetition  of  it  upon  Trumbull  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  as 
will  appear  from  the  appendix  of  the  Congressional  Globe  of  that  date. 

On  the  9th  of  August,  Harris  attempted  it  again  upon  Norton  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  as  will  appear  by  the  same  documents — the  appendix  to  the  Con- 
gressional Globe  of  that  date.  On  the  21st  of  August  last,  all  three — Lanphier, 
Douglas  and  Harris — reattempted  it  upon  me  at  Ottawa.  It  has  been  clung  to  and 
played  out  again  and  again  as  an  exceedingly  high  trump  by  this  blessed  trio.  And 
now  that  it  has  been  discovered  publicly  to  be  a  fraud,  we  find  that  Judge  Douglas 
manifests  no  surprise  at  it  at  all.  He  makes  no  complaint  of  Lanphier,  who  must 
have  known  it  to  be  a  fraud  from  the  beginning.  He,  Lanphier  and  Harris,  are  just 
as  cozy  now,  and  just  as  active  in  the  concoction  of  new  schemes  as  they  were  be- 
fore the  general  discovery  of  this  fraud.  Now  all  this  is  very  natural  if  they  are 
all  alike  guilty  in  that  fraud,  and  it  is  very  unnatural  if  any  one  of  them  is  innocent. 
Lanphier  perhaps  insists  that  the  rule  of  honor  among  thieves  does  not  quite  require 
him  to  take  all  upon  himself,  and  consequently  my  friend  Judge  Douglas  finds  it  dif- 
ficult to  make  a  satisfactory  report  upon  his  investigation.  But  meanwhile  the  three 
are  agreed  that  each  is  " a  most  honorable  man" 

Judge  Douglas  requires  an  indorsement  of  his  truth  and  honor  by  a  re-election 
to  the  United  States  Senate,  and  he  makes  and  reports  against  me  and  against  Judge 
Trumbull.  day  after  day,  charges  which  we  know  to  be  utterly  untrue,  without  for  a 
moment  Deeming  to  think  that  this  one  unexplained  fraud,  which  he  promised  to 
investigate,  will  be  the  least  drawback  to  his  claim  to  belief.  Harris  ditto.  He  asks 
a  re-election  to  the  lower  House  of  Congress  without  seeming  to  remember  at  all 
I  hat  he  is  involved  in  this  dishonorable  fraud!  The  Illinois  State  Register,  edited  by 
Lanphier,  then,  as  now,  the  central  organ  of  both  Harris  and  Douglas,  continues  to 
din  the  public  ear  with  this  assertion  without  seeming  to  suspect  that  these  assertions 
are  at  all  lacking  in  title  to  belief. 

After  all,  the  question  still  recurs  upon  us,  how  did  that  fraud  originally  get  into 
the  State  Register  ?  Lanphier  then,  as  now,  was  the  editor  of  that  paper.  Lan- 
pliicr  knows.  Lanphier  cannot  be  ignorant  of  how  and  by  whom  it  was  originally 
concocted.  Can  he  be  induced  to  tell,  or  if  he  has  told,  can  Judge  Douglas  be  in- 
duced to  tell  how  it  originally  was  concocted  ?  It  may  be  true  that  Lanphier  insists 
that  the  two  men  for  whose  benefit  it  was  originally  devised,  shall  at  least  bear  their 
share  of  it !  How  that  is,  I  do  not  know,  and  while  it  remains  unexplained,  I  hope 
to  be  pardoned  if  I  insist  that  the  mere  fact  of  Judge  Douglas  ^  making  charges 
against  Trumbull  and  myself  is  not  quite  sufficient  evidence  to  establish  them! 


184 

While  w?  were  at  Freeport,  in  one  of  these  joint  discussions,  I  ajswered  certain 
interrogatories  which  Judge  Douglas  had  propounded  to  me,  and  there  in  turn  pro- 
pounded some  to  him,  which  he  in  a  sort  of  way  answered.  The  third  one  of  these 
interrogatories  I  have  with  me  and  wish  now  to  make  some  comments  upon  it.  It 
was  in  these  words :  u  If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  shall  decide  that 
the  States  cannot  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  are  you  in  favor  of  acquiescing 
in,  adhering  to  and  following  such  decision,  as  a  rule  of  political  action  ?  " 

To  this  interrogatory  Judge  Douglas  made  no  answer  in  any  just  sense  of  the 
word.  lie  contented  himself  with  sneering  at  the  thought  that  it  was  possible  for 
the  Supreme  Court  ever  to  make  such  a  decision.  He  sneered  at  me  for  propound- 
ing the  interrogatory.  I  had  not  propounded  it  without  some  reflection,  and  I  wish 
now  to  address  to  this  audience  some  remarks  upon  it. 

In  the  second  clause  of  the  sixth  article,  I  believe  it  is,  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  we  find  the  following  language :  "  This  Constitution  and  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof;  and  all  treaties  made, 
or  which  shall  be  made  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  su- 
preme law  of  the  land ;  and  the  judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  any 
thing  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 

The  essence  of  the  Dred  Scott  case  is  compressed  into  the  sentence  which  I  will 
now  read :  "  Now,  as  we  have  already  said  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  opinion,  upon  a 
different  point,  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in 
the  Constitution."  I  repeat  it,  "  The  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and 
expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution  I "  What  is  it  to  be  "  affirmed "  in  the  Consti- 
tution ?  Made  firm  in  the  Constitution — so  made  that  it  cannot  be  separated  from  the 
Constitution  without  breaking  the  Constitution — durable  as  the  Constitution,  and  part 
of  the  Constitution.  Now,  remembering  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  I 
have  read,  affirming  that  that  instrument  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land ;  that  the 
Judges  of  every  State  shall  be  bound  by  it,  any  law  or  Constitution  of  any  State  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding ;  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  affirmed  in  that 
Constitution,  is  made,  formed  into,  and  cannot  be  separated  from  it  without  breaking 
it ;  durable  as  the  instrument ;  part  of  the  instrument ; — what  follows  as  a  short  and 
even  syllogistic  argument  from  it  ?  I  think  it  follows,  and  I  submit  to  the  considera- 
tion of  men  capable  of  arguing,  whether  as  I  state  it,  in  syllogistic  form,  the  argument 
has  any  fault  in  it  ? 

Nothing  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  can  destroy  a  right  distinctly  and 
expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States. 

Therefore,  nothing  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  can  destroy  the  right 
of  property  in  a  slave. 

I  believe  that  no  fault  can  be  pointed  out  in  that  argument;  assuming  the  truth 
of  the  premises,  the  conclusion,  so  far  as  I  have  capacity  at  all  to  understand  it, 
follows  inevitably.  There  is  a  fault  in  it  as  I  think,  but  the  fault  is  not  in  the  rea- 
soning ;  but  the  falsehood  in  fact  is  a  fault  of  the  premises.  I  believe  that  the  right 
of  property  in  a  slave  is  not  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution, 
and  Judge  Douglas  thinks  it  is.  I  believe  that  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  advo- 
cates of  that  decision  may  search  in  vain  for  the  place  in  the  Constitution  where  the 
right  of  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed.  I  say,  therefore,  that  I  think 
one  of  the  premises  is  not  true  in  fact.  But  it  is  true  with  Judge  Douglas.  It  is 
true  with  the  Supreme  Court  who  pronounced  it.  They  are  estopped  from  denying 
it,  and  being  estopped  from  denying  it,  the  conclusion  follows  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  being  the  supreme  law,  no  constitution  or  law  can  interfere  with 
it.  It  being  affirmed  in  the  decision  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly 
and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution,  the  conclusion  inevitably  follows  that  no 
State  law  or  constitution  can  destroy  that  right.  I  then  say  to  Judge  Douglas  and 
to  all  others,  that  I  think  it  will  take  a  better  answer  than  a  sneer  to  show  that  those. 


185 

who  have  said  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirm- 
ed in  the  Constitution,  are  not  prepared  to  show  that  no  constitution  or  law  can 
destroy  that  right.  I  say  I  believe  it  will  take  a  far  better  argument  than  a  mere 
sneer  to  show  to  the  minds  of  intelligent  men  that  whoever  has  so  said,  is  not  pre- 
pared, whenever  public  sentiment  is  so  far  advanced  as  to  justify  it,  to  say  the  other. 
This  is  but  an  opinion,  and  the  opinion'  of  one  very  humble  man;  but  it  is  my 
opinion  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  as  it  is,  never  would  have  been  madt  in  its 
present  form  if  the  party  that  made  it  had  not  been  sustained  previously  by  the 
elections.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  the  new  Dred  Scott  decision,  deciding  against 
the  right  of  the  people  of  the  States  to  exclude  slavery,  will  never  be  made,  if  thai 
party  is  not  sustained  by  the  elections.  I  believe,  further,  that  it  is  just  as  sure  to 
be  made  as  to-morrow  is  to  come,  if  that  party  shall  be  sustained.  I  have  said,  upon 
a  former  occasion,  and  I  repeat  it  now,  that  the  course  of  argument  that  Judge 
Douglas  makes  use  of  upon  this  subject  (I  charge  not  his  motives  in  this),  is  pre- 
paring the  public  mind  for  that  new  Dred  Scott  decision.  I  have  asked  him  again 
to  point  out  to  me  the  reasons  for  his  first  adherence  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision  as  it 
is.  I  have  turned  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  General  Jackson  differed  with  him  in 
regard  to  the  political  obligation  of  a  Supreme  Court  decision.  I  have  asked  his 
attention  to  the  fact  that  Jefferson  differed  with  him  in  regard  to  the  political  obliga- 
tion of  a  Supreme  Court  decision.  Jefferson  said,  that  "Judges  are  as  honest  as 
other  men.  and  not  more  so."  And  he  said,  substantially,  that  "whenever  a  free 
people  should  give  up  in  absolute  submission  to  any  department  of  government, 
retaining  for  themselves  no  appeal  from  it,  their  liberties  were  gone."  I  have  asked 
his  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Cincinnati  platform,  upon  which  he  says  he  stands,  dis- 
regards a  time-honored  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  denying  the  power  of  Con- 
gress to  establish  a  National  Bank.  I  have  asked  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  he 
himself  was  one  of  the  most  active  instruments  at  one  time  in  breaking  down  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  because  it  had  made  a  decision  distasteful  to 
him  —  a  struggle  ending  in  the  remarkable  circumstance  of  his  sitting  down  as  one 
of  the  new  Judges  who  were  to  overslaugh  that  decision — getting  his  title  of  Judge 
in  that  very  way. 

So  far  in  this  controversy  I  can  get  no  answer  at  all  from  Judge  Douglas  upon 
these  subjects.  Not  one  can  I  get  from  him,  except  that  he  swells  himself  up  and 
says,  "All  of  us  who  stand  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  the  friends  of 
the  Constitution ;  all  you  fellows  that  dare  question  it  in  any  way,  are  the  enemies 
of  the  Constitution."  Now,  in  this  very  devoted  adherence  to  this  decision,  in  op- 
position to  all  the  great  political  leaders  whom  he  has  recognized  as  leaders — in 
opposition  to  his  former  self  and  history,  there  is  something  very  marked.  And  the 
manner  in  which  he  adheres  to  it — not  as  being  right  upon  the  merits,  as  he  conceives 
(because  he  did  not  discuss  that  at  all),  but  as  being  absolutely  obligatory  upon  every 
one  simply  because  of  the  source  from  whence  it  comes  —  as  that  which  no  man 
can  gainsay,  whatever  it  may  be  —  this  is  another  marked  feature  of  his  adherence 
to  that  decision.  It  marks  it  in  this  respect,  that  it  commits  him  to  the  next  decision, 
whenever  it  comes,  as  being  as  obligatory  as  this  one,  since  he  does  not  investigate 
it,  and  won't  inquire  whether  this  opinion  is  right  or  wrong.  So  ho  takes  tho  next 
one  without  inquiring  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong.  He  teaches  men  this  dcctrine, 
and  in  so  doing  prepares  the  public  mind  to  take  the  next  decision  when  it  comes, 
without  any  inquiry.  In  this  I  think  I  argue  fairly  (without  questioning  motives 
at  all),  that  Judge  Douglas  is  most  ingeniously  and  powerfully  preparing  the  public 
mind  to  take  that  decision  when  it  comes;  and  not  only  so,  but  he  is  doing  i-t  in 
various  other  ways.  In  these  general  maxims  about  liberty — in  his  assertions  that 
he  "don't  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  up  or  voted  down;"  that  "whoever  wants 
slavery  has  a  right  to  have  it;"  that  "upon  principles  of  equality  it  should  be  allow- 
ed to  go  every  where;*'  that  "there  is  no  inconsistency  between  free  and  slave  insti- 
tutions." In  this  he  is  also  preparing  (whether  purposely  or  not)  the  way  for  making 
the  institution  of  slavery  national!  I  repeat  again,  for  I  wish  no  misunderstand- 


186 

ng,  that  I  do  not  charge  that  he  means  it  so;  but  I  call  upon  your  minds  to  inquiry 
if  you  were  going  to  get  the  best  instrument  you  could,  and  then  set  it  to  work  in  the 
most  ingenious  way,  to  prepare  the  public  mind  for  this  movement,  operating  in  the 
free  States,  where  there  is  now  an  abhorrence  of  the  institution  of  slavery,  could 
you  find  an  instrument  so  capable  of  doing  it  as  Judge  Douglas?  or  one  employed 
in  so  apt  a  way  to  do  it? 

I  have  said  once  before,  and  I  will  repeat  it  now,  that  Mr.  Clay,  when  he  was 
once  answering  an  objection  to  the  Colonization  Society,  that  it  had  a  tendency  to 
the  ultimate  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  said  that  "those  who  would  repress  all  ten- 
dencies to  liberty  and  ultimate  emancipation  must  do  more  than  put  down  the  benev- 
olent efforts  of  the  Colonization  Society — they  must  go  back  to  the  era  of  our  liberty 
and  independence,  and  muzzle  the  cannon  that  thunders  its  annual  joyous  return  — 
they  must  blot  out  the  moral  lights  around  us — they  must  penetrate  the  human  soul, 
and  eradicate  the  light  of  reason  and  the  love  of  liberty!"  And  I  do  think  — 
I  repeat,  though  I  said  it  on  a  former  occasion — that  Judge  Douglas,  and  whoever  like 
him  teaches  that  the  negro  has  no  share,  humble  though  it  may  be,  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  is  going  back  to  the  era  of  our  liberty  and  independence,  and, 
so  far  as  in  him  lies,  muzzling  the  cannon  that  thunders  its  annual  joyous  return ; 
that  he  is  blowing  out  the  moral  lights  around  us,  when  he  contends  that  whoever 
wants  slaves  has  a  right  to  hold  them;  that  he  is  penetrating,  so  far  as  lies  in  his 
power,  the  human  soul,  and  eradicating  the  light  of  reason  and  the  love  of  liberty, 
when  he  is  in  every  possible  way  preparing  the  public  mind,  by  his  vast  influence, 
for  making  the  institution  of  slavery  perpetual  and  national. 

There  is,  my  friends,  only  one  other  point  to  which  I  will  call  your  attention  for 
the  remaining  time  that  I  have  left  me,  and  perhaps  I  shall  not  occupy  the  entire 
time  that  I  have,  as  that  one  point  may  not  take  me  clear  through  it. 

Among  the  interrogatories  that  Judge  Douglas  propounded  to  me  at  Freeport, 
there  was  one  in  about  this  language:  "Are  you  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  any 
further  territory  to  the  United  States,  unless  slavery  shall  first  be  prohibited  therein?" 
I  answered  as  I  thought,  in  this  way,  that  I  am  not  generally  opposed  to  the  acqui- 
sition of  additional  territory,  and  that  I  would  support  a  proposition  for  the  acquisi- 
tion of  additional  territory,  according  as  my  supporting  it  was  or  was  not  calculated 
to  aggravate  this  slavery  question  amongst  us.  I  then  proposed  to  Judge  Douglas 
another  interrogatory,  which  was  correlative  to  that:  "Are  you  in  favor  of  acquiring 
additional  territory  in  disregard  of  how  it  may  affect  us  upon  the  slavery  question?" 
Judge  Douglas  answered,  that  is,  in  his  own  way  he  answered  it.  I  believe  that, 
although  he  took  a  good  many  words  to  answer  it,  it  was  a  little  more  fully  answered 
than  any  other.  The  substance  of  his  answer  was.  that  this  country  would  continue 
to  expand — that  it  would  need  additional  territory — that  it  was  as  absurd  to  suppose 
that  we  could  continue  upon  our  present  territory,  enlarging  in  population  a-s  we  are, 
as  it  would  be  to  hoop  a  boy  twelve  years  of  age,  and  expect  him  to  grow  to  man's 
size  without  bursting  the  hoops.  1  believe  it  was  something  like  that.  Conse- 
quently he  was  in  favor  of  the  acquisition  of  further  territory,  as  fast  as  we  might 
ne^d  it,  in  disregard  of  how  it  might  affect  the  slavery  question.  I  do  not  say  thw 
as  giving  his  exact  language,  but  he  said  so  substantially,  and  he  would  leave  the 
question  of  slavery  where  the  territory  was  acquired,  to  be  settled  by  the  people  of 
the  acquired  territory.  ["  That's  the  doctrine."]  May  be  it  is  ;  let  us  consider  thai 
for  a  while.  This  will  probably,  in  the  run  of  tilings,  become  one  of  the  concrete 
manifestations  of  this  slavery  question.  If  Judge  Douglas's  policy  upon  this  question 
succeeds  and  gets  fairly  settled  down,  until  all  opposition  is  crushed  out,  the  next  thing 
will  be  a  grab  for  the  territory  of  poor  Mexico,  an  invasion  of  the  rich  lands  of 
South  America,  then  the  adjoining  islands  will  follow,  each  one  of  which  promises 
additional  slave  fields.  And  this  question  is  to  be  left  to  the  people  of  those  coun- 
tries for  settlement.  When  we  shall  get  Mexico,  I  don't  know  whether  the  Judge 
will  be  in  favor  of  the  Mexican  people  that  we  get  with  it  settling  that  question  for 
themselves  and  all  others;  because  we  know  the  Judge  has  a  great  horror  for  mou- 


187 

grels,  and  I  understand  that  the  people  of  Mexico  are  most  decidedly  a  race  of 
mongrels.  I  understand  that  there  is  not  more  than  one  person  there  out  of  eight 
who  is  pure  white,  and  I  suppose  from  the  Judge's  previous  declaration  that  when 
we  get  Mexico  or  any  considerable  portion  of  it,  that  he  will  be  in  favor  of  these 
mongrels  settling  the  question,  which  would  bring  him  somewhat  into  collision  with 
his  horror  of  an  inferior  race. 

It  id  to  be  remembered,  though,  that  this  power  of  acquiring  additional  territory 
is  a  power  confided  to  the  President  and  Senate  of  the  United  States.  It  is  a  power 
not  under  the  control  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  any  further  than  they,  the 
President  and  the  Senate,  can  be  considered  the  representatives  of  the  people.  Let 
me  illustrate  that  by  a  case  we  have  in  our  history.  When  we  acquired  the  territory 
from  Mexico  in  the  Mexican  war,  the  House  of  Representatives,  composed  of  the 
immediate  representatives  of  the  people,  all  the  time  insisted  that  the  territory  thus 
to  be  acquired  should  be  brought  in  upon  condition  that  slavery  should  be  forever 
prohibited  therein,  upon  the  terms  and  in  the  language  that  slavery  had  been  pro- 
hibited from  coming  into  this  country.  That  was  insisted  upon  constantly,  and  never 
failed  to  call  forth  an  assurance  that  any  territory  thus  acquired  should  have  that 
prohibition  in  it,  so  far  as  the  House  of  Representatives  was  concerned.  But  at  last 
the  President  and  Senate  acquired  the  territory  without  asking  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives any  thing  about  it,  and  took  U  without  that  prohibition.  They  have  the 
power  of  acquiring  territory  without  the  immediate  representatives  of  the  people 
being  called  upon  to  say  any  thing  about  it,  and  thus  furnishing  a  very  apt  and  pow- 
erful means  of  bringing  new  territory  into  the  Union,  and  when  it  is  once  brought 
into  the  country,  involving  us  anew  in  this  slavery  agitation.  It  is,  therefore,  as  I 
think,  a  very  important  question  for  the  consideration  of  the  American  people, 
whether  the  policy  of  bringing  in  additional  territory,  without  considering  at  all  how 
it  will  operate  upon  the  safety  of  the  Union  in  reference  to  this  one  great  disturbing 
element  in  our  national  politics,  shall  be  adopted  as  the  policy  of  the  country.  You 
will  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  to  be  acquired,  according  to  the  Judge's  view,  as  fast  as 
it  is  needed,  and  the  indefinite  part  of  this  proposition  is  that  we  have  only  Judge 
Douglas  and  his  class  of  men  to  decide  how  fast  it  is  needed.  We  have  no  clear 
and  certain  way  of  determining  or  demonstrating  how  fast  territory  is  needed  by  the 
necessities  of  the  country.  Whbever  wants  to  go  out  filibustering,  then,  thinks  that 
more  territory  is  needed.  Whoever  wants  wider  slave  fields,  feels  sure  that  some 
additional  territory  is  needed  as  slave  territory.  Then  it  is  as  easy  to  show  the 
necessity  of  additional  slave  territory  as  it  is  to  assert  any  thing  that  is  incapable  of 
absolute  demonstration.  Whatever  motive  a  man  or  a  set  of  men  may  have  for 
making  annexation  of  property  or  territory,  it  is  very  easy  to  assert,  but  much  less 
easy  to  disprove,  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  wants  of  the  country. 

And  now  it  only  remains  for  me  to  say  that  I  think  it  is  a  very  grave  question  for 
the  people  of  this  Union  to  consider  whether,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  this  slavery 
question  has  been  the  only  one  that  has  ever  endangered  our  Republican  insti- 
tutions— the  only  one  that  has  ever  threatened  or  menaced  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union — that  has  ever  disturbed  us  in  mch  a  way  as  to  make  us  fear  for  the  perpe- 
tuity of  our  liberty — in  view  of  these  facts,  I  think  it  is  an  exceedingly  interesting 
and  important  question  for  this  people  to  consider,  whether  we  shall  engage  in  the 
policy  of  acquiring  additional  territory,  discarding  altogether  from  our  consideration, 
while  obtaining  new  territory,  the  question  how  it  may  affect  us  in  regard  to  this  the 
only  endangering  element  to  our  liberties  and  national  greatness.  The  Judge's  view- 
has  been  expressed.  I,  in  my  answer  to  his  question,  have  expressed  mine.  I  think 
it  will  become  an  important  arid  practical  question.  Our  views  are  before  the  pub- 
lic. I  am  willing  and  anxious  that  they  should  consider  them  fully — that  they 
should  turn  it  about  and  consider  the  importance  of  the  question,  and  arrive  at  a 
just  conclusion  as  to  whether  it  is  or  is  not  wise  in  the  people  of  this  Union,  in  the 
acquisition  of  new  territory,  to  consider  whether  it  will  add  to  the  disturbance  that  is 
existing  amongst  us — whether  it  will  add  to  the  one  only  danger  that  has  ever 


188 

threatened  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  or  our  own  liberties.  I  think  it  is  extremely 
important  that  they  shall  decide,  and  rightly  decide,  that  question  before  entering  upon 
that  policy. 

And  now,  my  friends,  having  said  the  little  I  wish  to  say  upon  this  head,  whether 
I  have  occupied  the  whole  of  the  remnant  of  my  time  or  not,  I  believe  I  could  not 
enter  upon  any  new  topics  so  as  to  treat  it  fully  without  transcending  my  time, 
which  I  would  not  for  a  moment  think  of  doing.  I  give  way  to  Judge  Doaglas. 


MR.  DOUGLAS'S  REPLY. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  highest  compliment  you  can  pay  ine  during  the  brief  half  hour 
that  I  have  to  conclude  is  by  observing  a  strict  silence.  I  desire  to  be  heard  rather 
than  to  be  applauded. 

The  first  criticism  that  Mr.  Lincoln  makes  on  my  speech  was  that  it  was  in  sub- 
stance what  I  have  said  every  where  else  in  the  State  where  I  have  addressed  the 
people.  I  wish  I  could  say  the  same  of  his  speech.  Why,  the  reason  I  complain 
of  him  is  because  he  makes  one  speech  north  and  another  south.  Because  he  has 
one  set  of  sentiments  for  the  Abolition  counties  and  another  set  for  the  counties 
opposed  to  Abolitionism.  My  point  of  complaint  against  him  is  that  I  cannot  induce 
him  to  hold  up  the  same  standard,  to  carry  the  same  flag  in  all  parts  of  the  State. 
He  does  not  pretend,  and  no  other  man  will,  that  I  have  one  set  of  principles  for 
Galesburgh  and  another  for  Charleston.  He  does  not  pretend  that  I  hold  to  one  doc- 
trine in  Chicago  and  an  opposite  one  in  Jonesboro.  I  have  proved  that  he  has  a 
diifer3nt  set  of  principles  for  each  of  these  localities.  All  I  asked  of  him  was  that, 
he  should  deliver  the  speech  that  he  has  made  here  to-day  in  Coles  county  instead 
of  in  old  Knox.  It  would  have  settled  the  question  between  us  in  that  doubtful 
county.  Here  I  understand  him  to  reaffirm  the  doctrine  of  negro  equality,  and  to 
assert  that  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence  the  negro  is  declared  equal  to  the 
white  man.  He  tells  you  to-day  that  the  negro  was  included  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  when  it  asserted  that  all  men  were  created  equal.  ["We  believe  it,"] 
Very  well. 

Mr.  Lincoln  asserts  to-day  as  he  did  at  Chicago,  that  the  negro  was  included  in 
that  clause  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  which  says  that  all  men  were  crea- 
ted equal  and  endowed  by  the  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which 
are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  If  the  negro  was  made  his  equal  and 
mine,  if  that  equality  was  established  by  Divine  law,  and  was  the  negro's  inalienable 
right,  how  came  he  to  say  at  Charleston  to  the  Kentuckians  residing  in  that  section 
of  our  State,  that  the  negro  was  physically  inferior  to  the  white  man,  belonged  to  an 
inferior  race,  and  he  was  for  keeping  him  always  in  that  inferior  condition.  I  wish 
you  to  bear  these  things  in  mind.  At  Charleston  he  said  that  the  negro  belonged  to 
an  inferior  race,  and  that  he  was  for  keeping  him  in  that  inferior  condition.  There 
he  gave  the  people  to  understand  that  there  was  no  moral  question  involved,  because 
the  inferiority  being  established,  it  was  only  a  question  of  degree  and  not  a  question 
of  right ;  here,  to  day,  instead  of  making  it  a  question  of  degree,  he  makes  it  a 
moral  question,  says  that  it  is  a  great  crime  to  hold  the  negro  in  that  inferior  condi- 
tion. [u  He's  right."]  Is  he  right  now  or  was  he  right  in  Charleston  ?  ["  Both."] 
He  is  right  then,  sir,  in  your  estimation,  not  because  he  is  consistent,  but  because  he 
can  trim  his  principles  any  way  in  any  section,  so  as  to  secure  votes.  All  I  desire  of 
him  is  that  he  will  declare  the  same  principles  in  the  south  that  he  does  in  the  north. 

But  did  you  notice  how  he  answered  my  position  that  a  man  should  hold  the  same 
doctrines  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  this  Republic?  He  said,  "Would 
Judge  Douglas  go  to  Russia  and  proclaim  the  same  principles  lie  does  here  ?"  I 
would  remind  him  that  Russia  is  not  under  the  American  Constitution.  If  Russia 
was  a  part  of  the  American  Republic,  under  our  Federal  Constitution,  and  I  was 


189 

to  support  the  Constitution,  1  would  maintain  the  same  doctrine  in  Russia  that 
I  do  in  Illinois.  The  slaveholding  States  are  governed  by  the  same  Federal  Consti- 
tution as  ourselves,  and  hence  a  man's  principles,  in  order  to  be  in  harmony  with  the 
Constitution,  must  be  the  same  in  the  south  as  they  are  in  the  north,  the  same  in  the 
free  States  as  they  are  in  the  slave  States.  Whenever  a  man  advocates  one  set  of 
prin:iples  in  one  section,  and  another  set  in  another  section,  his  opinions  are  in  vio- 
lation of  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  which  he  has  sworn  to  support.  When  Mr. 
Lincoln  went  to  Congress  in  1847,  and  laying  his  hand  upon  the  Holy  Evangelists, 
made  n  solemn  vow  in  the  presence  of  high  Heaven  that  he  would  be  faithful  to  the 
Constitution — what  did  he  mean  ?  the  Constitution  as  he  expounds  it  in  Galesburgh. 
or  the  Constitution  as  he  expounds  it  in  Charleston. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  devoted  considerable  time  to  the  circumstance  that  at  Ottawa  I 
road  a  series  of  resolutions  as  having  been  adopted  at  Springfield,  in  this  State,  on 
the  4th  or  5th  of  October,  1854,  which  happened  not  to  have  been  adopted  there. 
He  has  used  hard  names ;  has  dared  to  talk  about  fraud,  about  forgery,  and  has 
insinuated  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  between  Mr.  Lanphier,  Mr.  Harris,  and  my- 
self to  perpetrate  a  forgery.  Now,  bear  in  mind  that  he  does  not  deny  that  these 
resolutions  were  adopted  in  a  majority  of  all  the  Republican  counties  of  this  State 
in  that  year ;  he  does  not  deny  that  they  were  declared  to  be  the  platform  of  this 
Republican  party  in  the  first  Congressional  District,  in  the  second,  in  the  third,  and 
in  many  counties  of  the  fourth,  and  that  they  thus  became  the  platform  of  his  party 
in  a  majority  of  the  counties  upon  which  he  now  relies  for  support ;  he  does  not  deny 
the  truthfulness  of  the  resolutions,  but  takes  exception  to  the  spot  on  which  they 
were  adopted.  He  takes  to  himself  great  merit  because  he  thinks  they  were  not 
adopted  on  the  right  spot  for  me  to  use  them  against  him,  just  as  he  was  very  severe 
in  Congress  upon  the  Government  of  his  country  when  he  thought  that  he  had  dis- 
covered that  the  Mexican  war  was  not  begun  in  the  right  spot,  and  was  therefore 
unjust.  He  tries  very  hard  to  make  out  that  there  is  something  very  extraordinary 
in  the  place  where  the  thing  was  done,  and  not  in  the  thing  itself.  I  never  believed 
before  that  Abraham  Lincoln  would  be  guilty  of  what  he  has  done  this  day  in  regard 
to  those  resolutions.  In  the  first  place,  the  moment  it  was  intimated  to  me  that  they 
had  been  adopted  at  Aurora  and  Rocktbrd  instead  of  Springfield,  I  did  not  wait  for 
him  to  call  my  attention  to  the  fact,  but  led  off  and  explained  in  my  first  meeting 
after  the  Ottawa  debate,  what  the  mistake  was,  and  how  it  had  been  made.  I  sup- 
posed that  for  an  honest  man,  conscious  of  his  own  rectitude,  that  explanation  would 
be  sufficient.  I  did  not  wait  for  him,  after  the  mistake  was  made,  to  call  niy  atten- 
tion to  it,  but  frankly  explained  it  at  once  as  an  honest  man  would.  I  also  gave  the 
authority  on  which  I  had  stated  that  these  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  Spring- 
lit1  Id  Republican  Convention.  That  I  had  seen  them  quoted  by  Major  Harris  in  a 
debate  in  Congress,  as  having  been  adopted  by  the  first  Republican  State  Conven- 
tion in  Illinois,  and  that  I  had  written  to  him  and  asked  him  for  the  authority  as  to 
the  time  and  place  of  their  adoption;  that  Major  Harris  being  extremely  ill, 
Charles  H.  Lanphier  had  written  to  me  for  him,  that  they  were  adopted  at  Spring- 
field, on  the  5th  of  October,  1854,  "and  had  sent  me  a  copy  of  the  Springfield  paper 
containing  them.  I  read  them  from  the  newspaper  just  as  Mr.  Lincoln  reads  the 
proceedings  of  meetings  held  years  ago  from  the  newspapers.  After  giving  that 
explanation,  I  did  not  think  there  was  an  honest  mmi  in  the  State  of  Illinois  who 
doubted  that  I  had  been  led  into  the  error,  if  it  was  such,  innocently,  in  the  way  1 
detailed ;  and  I  will  now  say  that  I  do  not  now  believe  that  there  is  an  honest  man 
on  the  face  of  the  globe  who  will  not  regard  with  abhorrence  and  disgust  Mr.  Lin- 
coln's insinuations  of  my  complicity  in  that  forgery,  if  it  was  a  forgery.  Does  Mr. 
Lincoln  wi  li  to  push  these  things  to  the  point  of  personal  difficulties  here  ?  I  com- 
menced this  contest  by  treating  him  courteously  and  kindly ;  I  always  spoke  of  him 
in  words  of  respect,  mid  in  return  he  has  sought,  and  is  now  seeking,  to  divert  public 
attention  from  the  enormity  of  his  revolutionary  principles  by  impeaching  men's  sin*- 
cerity  and  integrity,  and  inviting  personal  quarrels. 
13 


190 

I  desired  to  conduct  this  contest  with  him  like  a  gentleman,  but  I  spurn  the  insin- 
uation of  complicity  and  fraud  made  upon  the  simple  circumstance  of  an  editor  of  a 
newspaper  having  made  a  mistake  as  to  the  place  where  a  thing  was  done,  but  not 
a.s  to  the  thing  itself.  These  resolutions  were  the  platform  of  this  Republican  party 
of  Mr.  Lincoln's  of  that  year.  They  were  adopted  in  a  majority  of  the  Republican 
counties  in  the  State;  and  when  I  asked  him  at  Ottawa  whether  they  formed  the 
platform  upon  which  he  stood,  he  did  not  answer,  and  I  could  not  get  an  answer  out 
of  him.  lie  then  thought,  as  I  thought,  that  those  resolutions  were  adopted  at  the 
Springfield  Convention,  but  excused  himself  by  -saying  that  he  was  not  there  when 
they  nere  adopted,  but  had  gone  to  Tazewell  court  in  order  to  avoid  being  present 
at  the  Convention.  He  saw  them  published  as  having  been  adopted  at  Sprimi"  field, 
and  so  did  I,  and  he  knew  that  if  there  was  a  mistake  in  regard  to  them,  that  I  had 
nothing  under  heaven  to  do  with  it.  Besides,  you  find  that  in  all  these  northern 
counties  where  the  Republican  candidates  are  running  pledged  to  him,  that  the  Con- 
ventions which  nominated  them  adopted  that  identical  platform.  One  cardinal  point 
in  that  platform  which  he  shrinks  from  is  this — that  there  shall  be  no  more  slave 
States  admitted  into  the  Union,  even  if  the  people  want  them.  Lovejoy  stands 
pledged  against  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States.  ["  Right,  so  do  we."]  So 
do  you,  you  say.  Farnsworth  stands  pledged  against  the  admission  of  any  more 
slave  States.  Washburne  stands  pledged  the  same  way.  The  candidate  ibr  the 
Legislature  who  is  running  on  Lincoln's  ticket  in  Henderson  and  Warren,  stands 
committed  by  his  vote  in  the  Legislature  to  the  same  thing,  and  I  am  informed,  but 
do  not  know  of  the  fact,  that  your  candidate  here  is  also  so  pledged.  £"  Hurra  for 
him,  good."]  Now,  you  Republicans  all  hurra  for  him,  and  for  the  doctrine  of  "no 
more  slave  States,"  and  yet  Lincoln  tells  you  that  his  conscience  will  not  permit  him 
to  sanction  that  doctrine.  And  complains  because  the  resolutions  I  read  at  Ottawa 
made  him,  as  a  member  of  the  party,  responsible  for  sanctioning  the  doctrine  of  no 
more  slave  States.  You  are  one  way,  you  confess,  and  he  is  or  pretends  to  be  the 
other,  and  yet  you  are  both  governed  by  principle  in  supporting  one  another.  If  it 
be  true,  as  I  have  shown  it  is,  that  the  whole  Republican  party  in  the  northern  part 
of  the  State  stands  committed  to  the  doctrine  of  no  more  slave  States,  and  that  this 
same  doctrine  is  repudiated  by  the  Republicans  in  the  other  part  of  the  State,  I 
wonder  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  party  do  not  present  the  case  which  he  cited 
from  the  Scriptures,  of  a  house  divided  against  itself  which  cannot  stand  !  I  desire 
to  know  what  are  Mr.  Lincoln's  principles  and  the  principles  of  his  party  ?  I  hold, 
and  the  party  with  which  I  am  identified  hold,  that  the  people  of  each  State,  old  and 
new,  have  the  right  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves,  and  when  I  used 
the  remark  that  I  did  not  care  whether  slavery  was  voted  up  or  down,  I  used  it  in 
the  connection  that  I  was  for  allowing  Kansas  to  do  just  as  she  pleased  on  the  slavery 
question.  I  said  that  I  did  not  care  whether  they  voted  slavery  up  or  down,  because 
they  had  the  right  to  do  as  they  pleased  on  the  question,  and  therefore  my  action 
would  not  be  controlled  by  any  such  consideration.  Why  cannot  Abraham  Lincoln, 
and  the  party  with  which  he  acts,  speak  out  their  principles  so  that  they  may  be 
understood?  Why  do  they  claim  to  be  one  thing  in  one  part  of  the  State  and  another 
in  the  other  part?  Whenever  I  allude  to  the  Abolition  doctrines,  which  he  considers 
a  slander  to  be  charged  with  being  in  favor  of,  you  all  indorse  them,  and  hurra  for 
them,  not  knowing  that  your  candidate  is  ashamed  to  acknowledge  them. 

I  have  a  few  words  to  say  upon  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  has  troubled  the 
brain  of  Mr.  Lincoln  so  much.  He  insists  that  that  decision  would  carry  slavery  into 
the  free  States,  notwithstanding  that  the  decision  says  directly  the  opposite ;  and  goes 
into  a  long  argument  to  make  you  believe  that  I  am  in  favor  of,  and  would  sanction 
the  doctrine  that  would  allow  slaves  to  be  brought  here  and  held  as  slaves  contrary 
to  our  Constitution  and  laws.  Mr.  Lincoln  knew  better  when  he  asserted  this ;  he 
knew  that  one  newspaper,  and  so  far  as  is  within  my  knowledge  but  one,  ever  assert- 
ed that  doctrine,  and  that  I  was  the  first  man  in  either  House  of  Congress  that  read 
that  article  in  debate,  and  denounced  it  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  as  revolutionary 


191 

When  the  Washington  LTnion,  on  the  17th  of  last  November,  published  an  article  to 
that  effect,  I  branded  it  at  once,  and  denounced  it,  and  hence  the  Union  has  been 
pursuing  me  ever  since.  Mr.  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  replied  to  me,  and  said  that  there 
was  not  a  man  in  any  of  the  slave  States  south  of  the  Potomac  river  that  held  any 
such  doctrine,  Mr.  Lincoln  knows  that  there  is  not  a  member  of  the  Supreme  Court 
who  holds  that  doctrine ;  he  knows  that  every  one  of  them,  as  shown  by  their  opin- 
ions, holds  the  reverse.  Why  this  attempt,  then,  to  bring  the  Supreme  Court  into 
disrepute  among  the  people  ?  It  looks  as  if  there  was  an  effort  being  made  to 
destroy  public  confidence  in  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  on  earth.  Suppose  he  suc- 
ceeds in  destroying  public  confidence  in  the  court,  so  that  the  people  will  not  respect 
its  decisions,  but  will  feel  at  liberty  to  disregard  them,  and  resist  the  laws  of  the  land, 
what  will  he  have  gained  ?  He  will  have  changed  the  Government  from  one  of  laws 
into  that  of  a  mob,  in  which  the  strong  arm  of  violence  will  be  substituted  for  the 
decisions  of  the  courts  of  justice.  He  complains  because  I  did  not  go  into  an  argu- 
ment reviewing  Chief  Justice  Taney's  opinion,  and  the  other  opinions  of  the  different 
judges,  to  determine  whether  their  reasoning  is  right  or  wrong  on  the  questions  of 
law.  What  use  would  that  be  ?  He  wants  to  take  an  appeal  from  the  Supreme 
Court  to  this  meeting  to  determine  whether  the  questions  of  law  were  decided  prop- 
erly. He  is  going  to  appeal  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  every 
town  meeting  in  the  hope  that  he  can  excite  a  prejudice  against  that  court,  and  on 
the  wave  of  that  prejudice  ride  into  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  when  he  could 
not  get  there  on  his  own  principles,  or  his  own  merits.  Suppose  he  should  succeed 
in  getting  into  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  what  then  will  he  have  to  do  with 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  ?  Can  he  reverse  that 
decision  when  he  gets  there  ?  Can  he  act  upon  it  ?  Has  the  Senate  any  right  to 
reverse  it  or  revise  it  ?  He  will  not  pretend  that  it  has.  Then  why  drag  the  matter 
into  this  contest,  unless  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  false  issue,  by  which  he  can 
direct  public  attention  from  the  real  issue. 

He  has  cited  General  Jackson  in  justification  of  the  war  he  is  making  on  the 
decision  of  the  court.  Mr.  Lincoln  misunderstands  the  history  of  the  country,  if  he 
believes  there  is  any  parallel  in  the  two  cases.  It  is  true  that  the  Supreme  Court 
once  decided  that  if  a  Bank  of  the  United  States  was  a  necessary  fiscal  agent  of  the 
Government,  it  was  Constitutional,  and  if  not,  that  it  was  unconstitutional,  and  also, 
that  whether  or  not  it  was  necessary  for  that  purpose,  was  a  political  question  for 
Congress  and  not  a  judicial  one  for  the  courts  to  determine.  Hence  the  court  would 
not  determine  the  bank  unconstitutional.  Jackson  respected  the  decision,  obeyed  the 
law,  executed  it  and  carried  it  into  effect  during  its  existence ;  but  after  the  charter 
of  the  bank  expired  and  a  proposition  was  made  to  create  a  new  bank,  General 
Jackson  said,  "it  is  unnecessary  and  improper,  and,  therefore,  I  am  against  it  on 
( Constitutional  grounds  as  well  as  those  of  expediency."  Is  Congress  bound  to  pass 
every  act  that  is  Constitutional?  Why,  there  are  a  thousand  things  that  are  Consti- 
tutional, but  yet  are  inexpedient  and  unnecessary,  and  you  surely  would  not  vote  for 
them  merely  because  you  had  the  right  to?  And  because  General  Jackson  would 
not  do  a  thing  which  he  had  a  right  to  do,  but  did  not  deem  expedient  or  proper, 
Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to  justify  himself  in  doing  that  which  he  has  no  right  to  do.  I 
ask  him,  whether  he  is  not  bound  to  respect  and  obey  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  as  well  as  me  ?  The  Constitution  has  created  that  court  to  decide  all  Consti- 
tutional questions  in  the  last  resort,  and  when  such  decisions  have  been  made,  they 
become  the  law  of  the  land,  and  you,  and  he,  and  myself,  and  every  other  good  citi- 
zen are  bound  by  them.  Yet,  he  argues  that  I  am  bound  by  their  decisions  and  he 
is  not.  He  says  that  their  decisions  are  binding  on  Democrats,  but  not  on  Republi- 
cans. Are  not  Republicans  bound  by  the  laws  of  the  land  as  well  as  Democrats  ? 
And  when  the  court  has  fixed  the  construction  of  the  Constitution  on  the  validity  of 
a  given  law,  is  not  their  decision  binding  upon  Republicans  as  well  as  upon  Demo- 
crats ?  Is  it  possible  that  you  Republicans  have  the  right  to  raise  your  mobs  and 
oppose  the  laws  of  the  land  and  the  constituted  authorities,  and  yet  l>okl  us  Demo- 


192 

crats  bound  to  obey  them  ?  My  time  is  within  half  a  minute  of  expiring,  and  all  I 
have  to  say  is,  that  I  stand  by  the  laws  of  the  land.  I  stand  by  the  Constitution  as 
our  fathers  made  it,  by  the  laws  as  they  are  enacted,  and  by  the  decisions  of  the 
court  upon  all  points  within  their  jurisdiction  as  they  are  pronounced  by  the  highest 
tribunal  on  earth ;  and  any  man  who  resists  these  must  resort  to  mob  law  and  vio- 
lence to  overturn  the  government  of  laws. 


SIXTH  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  QUINCY, 

October  ^13,  1858. 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  SPEECH. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  I  have  had  no  immediate  conference  with  Judge 
Douglas,  but  I  will  venture  to  say  that  he  and  I  will  perfectly  agree  that  your 
entire  silence,  both  when  I  speak  and  when  he  speaks,  will  be  most  agreeable 
to  us. 

In  the  month  of  May,  1856,  the  elements  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  which  have 
Huice  been  consolidated  into  the  Republican  party,  assembled  together  in  a  State 
Convention  at  Bloomington.  They  adopted  at  that  time,  what,  in  political  language, 
In  called  a  platform.  In  June  of  the  same  year,  the  elements  of  the  Republican 
party  in  the  nation  assembled  together  in  a  National  Convention  at  Philadelphia. 
They  adopted  what  is  called  the  National  Platform.  In  June,  1858 — the  present 
year — the  Republicans  of  Illinois  reassembled  at  Springfield,  in  State  Convention, 
and  adopted  again  their  platform,  as  I  suppose,  not  differing  in  any  essential  particu- 
lar from  either  of  the  former  ones,  but  perhaps  adding  something  in  relation  to  the 
new  developments  of  political  progress  in  the  country. 

The  Convention  that  assembled  in  June  last  did  me  the  honor,  if  it  be  one,  and  I 
esteem  it  such,  to  nominate  me  as  their  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate. 
I  have  supposed  that,  in  entering  upon  this  canvass,  I  stood  generally  upon  these  plat' 
forms.  We  are  now  met  together  on  the  13th  of  October  of  the  same  year,  only 
four  months  from  the  adoption  of  the  last  platform,  and  I  am  unaware  that  m 
this  canvass,  from  the  beginning  until  to-day,  any  one  of  our  adversaries  has 
taken  hold  of  our  platforms,  or  laid  his  finger  upon  any  thing  that  he  calls  wrong 
in  them. 

In  the  very  first  one  of  these  joint  discussions  between  Senator  Douglas  and  my- 
self, Senator  Douglas,  without  alluding  at  all  to  these  platforms,  or  any  one  of  them, 
of  which  I  have  spoken,  attempted  to  hold  me  responsible  for  a  set  of  resolutions 
passed  long  before  the  meeting  of  either  one  of  these  Conventions  of  which  I  have 
spoken.  And  as  a  ground  for  holding  me  responsible  for  these  resolutions,  he  as- 
sumed that  they  had  been  passed  at  a  State  Convention  of  the  Republican  party, 
and  that  I  took  part  in  that  Convention.  It  was  discovered  afterward  that  this  was 
erroneous,  that  the  resolutions  which  he  endeavored  to  hold  me  responsible  for,  had 
not  been  passed  by  any  State  Convention  any  where — had  not  been  passed  at 
Springfield,  where  he  supposed  they  had,  or  assumed  that  they  had,  and  that  they 
had  been  passed  in  no  Convention  in  which  I  had  taken  part.  The  Judge,  never- 
theless, was  hot  willing  to  give  up  the  point  that  he  was  endeavoring  to  make  upon 
me,  and  he  therefore  thought  to  still  hold  me  to  the  point  that  he  was  endeavoring  to 
make,  by  showing  that  the  resolutions  that  he  read,  had  been  passed  at  a  local  Con- 


193 

vention  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State,  although  it  was  not  a  local  Convention 
that  embraced  my  residence  at  all,  nor  one  that  reached,  as  I  suppose,  nearer  than 
one  hundred  and  fifty  or  two  hundred  miles  of  where  I  was  when  it  met,  nor  one  in 
which  T  took  any  part  at  all.  He  also  introduced  other  resolutions,  passed  at  othei 
meetings,  and  by  combining  the  whole,  although  they  were  all  antecedent  to  the 
two  State  Conventions,  and  the  one  National  Convention  I  have  mentioned,  still 
he  insisted  and  now  insists,  as  I  understand,  that  I  am  in  some  way  responsible  for 
them. 

At  Jonesboro,  on  our  third  meeting,  I  insisted  to  the  Judge  that  I  was  in  no  way  right- 
fully held  responsible  for  the  proceedings  of  this  local  meeting  or  Convention  in  which 
I  had  taken  no  part,  and  in  which  I  was  in  no  way  embraced ;  but  I  insisted  to  him 
that  if  he  thought  I  was  responsible  for  every  man  or  every  set  of  men  every  where, 
who  happen  to  be  my  friends,  the  rule  ought  to  work  both  ways,  and  he  ought  to  be  re- 
sponsible for  the  acts  and  resolutions  of  all  men  or  sets  of  men  who  were  or  are  now 
his  supporters  and  friends,  and  gave  him  a  pretty  long  string  of  resolutions,  passed 
by  men  who  are  now  his  friends,  and  announcing  doctrines  for  which  he  does  not  de- 
sire to  be  held  responsible. 

This  still  does  not  satisfy  Judge  Douglas.  He  still  adheres  to  his  proposition, 
that  I  am  responsible  for  what  some  of  my  friends  in  different  parts  of  the  State 
have  done ;  but  that  he  is  not  responsible  for  what  his  have  done.  At  least,  so  I 
understand  him.  But  in  addition  to  that,  the  Judge,  at  our  meeting  in  Galesburgh, 
last  week,  undertakes  to  establish  that  I  am  guilty  of  a  species  of  double-dealing 
with  the  public — that  I  make  speeches  of  a  certain  sort  in  the  north,  among  the 
Abolitionists,  which  I  would  not  make  in  the  south,  and  that  I  make  speeches  of  a 
certain  sort  in  the  south  which  I  would  not  make  in  the  north.  I  apprehend,  in  the 
course  I  have  marked  out  for  myself,  that  I  shall  not  have  to  dwell  at  very  great 
length  upon  this  subject. 

As  this  was  done  in  the  Judge's  opening  speech  at  Galesburgh,  I  had  an  opportu- 
nity, as  I  had  the  middle  speech  then,  of  saying  something  in  answer  to  it.  He 
brought  forward  a  quotation  or  two  from  a  speech  of  mine,  delivered  at  Chicago,  and 
then  to  contrast  with  it,  he  brought  forward  an  extract  from  a  speech  of  mine  at 
Charleston,  in  which  he  insisted  that  I  was  greatly  inconsistent,  and  insisted  that  his 
conclusion  followed  that  I  was  playing  a  double  part,  and  speaking  in  one  region  one 
way,  and  in  another  region  another  way.  I  have  not  time  now  to  dwell  on  this  as 
long  as  I  would  like,  and  wish  only  now  to  requote  that  portion  of  my  speech 
at  Charleston,  which  the  Judge  quoted,  and  then  make  some  comments  upon  it. 
This  he  quotes  from  me  as  being  delivered  at  Charleston,  and  I  believe  correctly : 
"  I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  bringing  about 
in  any  way  the  social  and  political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races — that  I  am 
not  nor  ever  have  been  in  favor  of  making  voters  or  jurors  of  negroes,  nor  of  qua)- 
fying  them  to  hold  office,  nor  to  intermarry  with  white  people ;  and  I  will  say  in  ad- 
dition to  this  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  white  and  black  races 
which  will  ever  forbid  the  two  races  living  together  on  terms  of  social  and  political 
equality.  And  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live,  while  they  do  remain  together,  there 
must  be  the  position  of  superior  and  inferior.  I  am  as  much  as  any  other  man  in 
favor  of  having  the  superior  position  assigned  to  the  white  race."  This,  I  believo,, 
is  the  entire  quotation  from  the  Charleston  speech,  as  Judge  Douglas  made  it.  His 
comments  are  as  follows  : 

"Yes,  here  you  find  men  who  hurra  for  Lincoln,  and  say  he  is  right  when 
he  discards  all  distinction  between  races,  or  when  he  declares  that  he  discards  the 
doctrine  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  superior  and  inferior  race  ;  and  Abolitionists 
are  required  and  expected  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lincoln  because  he  goes  for  the  equality 
of  races,  holding  that  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  the  white  man  and  negro 
were  declared  equal,  and  endowed  by  divine  law  with  equality.  And  down  south 
with  the  old  line  Whigs,  with  the  Kentuckians,  the  Virginians,  and  the  Tennessee- 
ans,  he  tells  vou  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  races,  making  the 


194. 

one  superior,  the  other  inferior,  and  he  is  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  superiority  jf 
the  white  race  over  the  negro." 

Those  are  the  Judge's  comments.  Now  I  wish  to  show  you,  that  a  month,  or, 
only  lacking  three  days  of  a  month,  before  I  made  the  speech  at  Charleston,  which 
the  Judge  quotes  from,  he  had  himself  heard  me  say  substantially  the  same  thing. 
It  was  in  our  first  meeting,  at  Ottawa — and  I  will  say  a  word  about  where  it  was, 
and  the  atmosphere  it  was  in,  after  awhile — but  at  our  first  meeting,  at  Ottawa,  I 
read  an  extract  from  an  old  speech  of  mine,  made  nearly  four  years  ago,  not  merely 
to  show  my  sentiments,  but  to  show  that  my  sentiments  were  long  entertained  and 
openly  expressed ;  in  which  extract  I  expressly  declared  that  my  own  feelings  would 
not  admit  a  social  and  political  equality  between  the  white  and  black  races,  and  that 
even  if  my  own  feelings  would  admit  of  it,  I  still  knew  that  the  public  sentiment  of 
the  country  would  not,  and  that  such  a  thing  was  an  utter  impossibility,  or  substan- 
tially that.  That  extract  i'rom  my  old  speech,  the  reporters,  by  some  sort  of  acci- 
dent, passed  over,  and  it  was  not  reported.  I  lay  no  blame  upon  any  body.  I  sup- 
pose they  thought  that  I  would  hand  it  over  to  them,  and  dropped  reporting  while  I 
was  reading  it,  but  afterward  went  away  without  getting  it  from  me.  At  the  end  of 
that  quotation  from  my  old  speech,  which  I  read  at  Ottawa,  I  made  the  comments 
which  were  reported  at  that  time,  and  which  I  will  now  read,  and  ask  you  to  notice 
how  very  nearly  they  are  the  same  as  Judge  Douglas  says  were  delivered  by  me, 
down  in  Egypt.  After  reading  I  added  these  words :  "  Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't 
want  to  read  at  any  great  length,  but  this  is  the  true  complexion  of  all  I  have  ever 
said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  or  the  black  race,  and  this  is  the  whole  of 
it ;  any  thing  that  argues  me  into  his  idea  of  perfect  social  and  political  equality 
with  the  negro,  is  but  a  specious  and  fantastical  arrangement  of  words  by  which  a 
man  can  prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut  horse.  I  will  say  here,  while  upon 
this  subject,  that  I  have  no  purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the  insti- 
tution in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I  have  no  right  to  do  so.  I  have  no 
inclination-  to  do  so.  I  have  no  purpose  to  introduce  political  and  social  equality 
between  the  white  and  black  races.  There  is  a  physical  difference  between  the 
two,  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably  forever  forbid  their  living  together  on  the 
footing  of  perfect  equality,  and  inasmuch  as  it  becomes  a  necessity  that  there  must 
be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which  I  be- 
long having  the  superior  position.  I  have  never  said  any  thing  to  the  contrary,  but 
I  hold  that,  notwithstanding  all  this,  there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  negro 
is  not  entitled  to  all  the  rights  enumerated  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence — the 
right  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  I  hold  that  he  is  as  much  enti- 
tled to  these  as  the  white  man.  I  agree  with  Judge  Douglas  that  he  is  not  my 
equal  in  many  respects,  certainly  not  in  color — perhaps  not  in  intellectual  and  moral 
endowments ;  but  in  the  right  to  eat  the  bread  without  the  leave  of  any  body  else 
which  his  own  hand  earns,  he  is  my  equal  and  the  equal  of  Judge  Douglas,  and  the 
equal  of  every  other  man." 

I  have  chiefly  introduced  this  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  Judge's  charge  that 
the  quotation  he  took  from  my  Charleston  speech  was  what  I  would  say  down  south 
among  the  Kentuckians,  the  Virginians,  etc.,  but  would  not  say  in  the  regions  in 
which  was  supposed  to  be  more  of  the  Abolition  element.  I  now  make  this  com- 
ment :  That  speech  from  which  I  have  now  read  the  quotation,  and  which  is  there 
given  correctly,  perhaps  too  much  so  for  good  taste,  was  made  away  up  north  in  the 
Abolition  District  of  this  State  par  excellence — in  the  Lovejoy  District — in  the  per- 
sonal presence  of  Lovejoy,  for  he  was  on  the  stand  with  us  when  I  made  it.  It  had 
been  made  and  put  in  print  in  that  region  only  three  days  less  than  a  month  before 
the  speech  made  at  Charleston,  the  like  of  which  Judge  Douglas  thinks  I  would  not 
make  where  there  was  any  Abolition  element  I  only  refer  to  this  matter  to  say 
that  I  am  altogether  unconscious  of  having  attempted  any  double-dealing  any  where 
— that  upon  one  occasion  I  may  say  one  thing  and  leave  other  things  unsaid,  and  vice 
versa;  but  that  I  have  said  any  thing  on  one  occasion  that  is  inconsistent  with  what 

" 


195 

I  have  said  elsewhere,  I  deny — at  least  I  deny  it  so  far  as  the  intention  is  concerned. 
I  find  that  I  have  devoted  to  this  topic  a  larger  portion  of  my  time  than  I  had  in- 
tended. I  wished  to  show,  hut  I  will  pass  it  upon  this  occasion,  that  in  the  senti- 
ment I  have  occasionally  advanced  upon  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  I  am  en- 
tirely borne  out  by  the  sentiments  advanced  by  our  old  Whig  leader,  Henry  Clay, 
and  I  have  the  book  here  to  show  it  from ;  but  because  I  have  already  occupied 
more  time  than  I  intended  to  do  on  that  tbpic,  I  pass  over  it. 

At  Galesburgh,  1  tried  to  show  that  by  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  pushed  to  its  legit- 
imate consequences,  slavery  would  be  established  in  all  the  States  as  well  as  in  the 
Territories.  I  did  this  because,  upon  a  former  occasion,  I  had  asked  Judge  Douglas 
whether,  if  the  Supreme  Court  should  make  a  decision  declaring  that  the  States  had 
not  the  power  to  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  he  would  adopt  and  follow  that  de- 
cision as  a  rule  of  political  action  ;  and  because  he  had  not  directly  answered  that 
question,  but  had  merely  contented  himself  with  sneering  at  it,  I  again  introduced  it, 
and  tried  to  show  that  the  conclusion  that  I  stated  followed  inevitably  and  logically 
from  the  proposition  already  decided  by  the  court.  Judge  Douglas  had  the  privilege 
of  replying  to  me  at  Galesburgh,  and  again  he  gave  me  no  direct  answer  as  to  whether 
he  would  or  would  not  sustain  such  a  decision  if  made.  I  give  him  this  third  chance 
to  say  yes  or  no.  He  is  not  obliged  to  do  either — probably  he  will  not  do  either — 
but  I  give  him  the  third  chance.  I  tried  to  show  then  that  this  result — this  conclu- 
sion inevitably  followed  from  the  point  already  decided  by  the  court.  The  Judge,  in 
his  reply,  again  sneers  at  the  thought  of  the  court  making  any  such  decision,  and  in 
the  course  of  his  remarks  upon  this  subject,  uses  the  language  which  I  will  now  read. 
Speaking  of  me  the  Judge  says : 

"  He  goes  on  and  insists  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  would  carry  slavery  into  the 
free  States,  notwithstanding  the  decision  itself  says  the  contrary."  And  he  adds : 
"  Mr.  Lincoln  knows  that  there  is  no  member  of  the  Supreme  Court  that  holds  that 
doctrine.  He  knows  that  every  one  of  them  in  their  opinions  held  the  reverse." 

I  especially  introduce  this  subject  again  for  the  purpose  of  saying  that  I  have  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  here,  and  I  will  thank  Judge  Douglas  to  lay  his  finger  upon  the 
place  in  the  entire  opinions  of  the  court  where  any  one  of  them  "  says  the  contrary." 
It  is  very  hard  to  affirm  a  negative  with  entire  coniidt-nce.  I  say,  however,  that  I 
have  examined  that  decision  with  a  good  deal  of  care,  as  a  lawyer  examines  a  decision, 
and  •*•!  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  do  so,  the  court  has  no  where  in  its  opinions  said 
that  the  States  have  the  power  to  exclude  slavery,  nor  have  they  used  other  language 
substantially  that  I  also  say,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  not  one  of  the  concurring  Judges 
has  said  that  the  States  can  exclude  slavery,  nor  said  any  thing  that  was  substantially 
that.  The  nearest  approach  that  any  one  of  them  has  made  to  it,  so  far  as  I  can 
find,  was  by  Judge  Nelson,  and  the  approach  he  made  to  it  was  exactly,  in  substance, 
the  'Nebraska  Bill — that  the  States  had  the  exclusive  power  over  the  question  of  sla- 
very, so  far  as  they  are  not  limited  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I 
asked  the  question  therefore,  if  the  non-concurring  Judges,  McLean  or  Curtis,  had 
asked  to  get  an  express  declaration  that  the  States  could  absolutely  exclude  slavery 
from  their  limits,  what  reason  have  we  to  believe  that  it  would  not  have  been  voted 
down  by  the  majority  of  the  Judges,  just  as  Chase's  amendment  was  voted  down  by 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  compeers  when  it  was  offered  to  the  Nebraska  Bill. 

Also  at  Galesburgh,  I  said  something  in  regard  to  those  Springfield  resolutions  that 
Judge  Douglas  had  attempted  to  use  upon  me  at  Ottawa,  and  commented  at  some 
length  upon  the  fact  that  they  were,  as  presented,  not  genuine.  Judge  Douglas  in 
his  reply  to  me  seemed  to  be  somewhat  exasperated.  He  said  he  would  never  have 
believed  that  Abraham  Lincoln,  as  he  kindly  called  me,  would  have  attempted  such 
a  thing  as  I  had  attempted  upon  that  occasion ;  and  among  other  expressions  which 
he  used  toward  me,  was  that  I  dared  to  say  forgery — that  I  had  dared  to  say  forgery 
[turning  to  Judge  Douglas].  Yes,  Judge,  I  did  dare  to  say  forgery.  But  in  thi* 
political  canvass,  the  Judge  ought  to  remember  that  I  was  not  the  first  who  dared  to 
say  forgery.  At  Jacksonville  Judge  Douglas  made  a  speech  in  answer  to  something 


196 

said  by  Judge  Trumbnll,  and  at  the  close  of  what  he  said  upon  that  subject,  he  dared 
to  say  that  Trumbull  had  forged  his  evidence.  He  said,  too.  that  he  should  not  con- 
cern himself  with  Trumbull  any  more,  but  thereafter  he  should  hold  Lincoln  responsible 
for  the  slanders  upon  him.  When  I  met  him  at  Charleston  after  that,  although  I 
think  that  I  should  not  have  noticed  the  subject  if  he  had  not  said  he  would  hold  me 
responsible  for  it,  I  spread  out  before  him  the  statements  of  the  evidence  that  Judge 
Trumbull  had  used,  and  I  asked  Judge  Douglas,  piece  by  piece,  to  put  his  finger  up- 
on one  piece  of  all  that  evidence  that  he  would  say  was  a  forgery !  When  I  went 
through  with  each  and  every  piece,  Judge  Douglas  did  not  dare  then  to  say  that  any 
piece  of  it  was  a  forgery.  So  it  seems  that  there  are  some  things  that  Judge  Doug- 
las dares  to  do,  and  some  that  he  dares  not  to  do. 

A  voice — "  It's  the  same  thing  with  you." 

Mr.  Lincoln — Yes,  sir,  it's  the  same  thing  with  me.  I  do  dare  to  say  forgery 
when  its  true,  and  don't  dare  to  say  forgery  when  it's  false.  Now.  I  will  say  here  to 
this  audience  and  to  Judge  Douglas,  I  have  not  dared  to  say  he  committed  a  forgery, 
and  I  never  shall  until  I  know  it ;  but  I  did  dare  to  say — just  to  suggest  to  the  Judge 
— that  a  forgery  had  been  committed,  which  by  his  own  showing  had  been  traced  to 
him  and  two  of  his  friends.  I  dared  to  suggest  to  him  that  he  had  expressly  prom- 
ised in  one  of  his  public  speeches  to  investigate  that  matter,  and  I  dared  to  suggest 
to  him  that  there  was  an  implied  promise  that  when  he  investigated  it  he  would  make 
known  the  result.  I  dared  to  suggest  to  the  Judge  that  he  could  not  expect  to  be 
quite  clear  of  suspicion  of  that  fraud,  for  since  the  time  that  promise  was  made  he 
had  been  with  those  friends,  and  had  not  kept  his  promise  in  regard  to  the  investiga- 
tion and  the  report  upon  it.  I  am  not  a  very  daring  man,  but  I  dared  that  much, 
Judge,  and  I  am  not  much  scared  about  it  yet.  When  the  Judge  says  he  would'nt 
have  believed  of  Abraham  Lincoln  that  he  wrould  have  made  such  an  attempt  as  that, 
he  reminds  me  of  the  fact  that  he  entered  upon  this  canvass  with  the  purpose  to  treat 
me  courteously ;  that  touched  me  somewhat.  It  sets  me  to  thinking.  I  was  aware, 
when  it  was  first  agreed  that  Judge  Douglas  and  I  were  to  have  these  seven  joint 
discussions,  that  they  were  the  successive  acts  of  a  drama — perhaps  I  should  say,  to 
be  enacted  not  merely  in  the  face  of  audiences  like  this,  but  in  the  face  of  the  nation, 
and  to  some  extent,  by  my  relation  to  him,  and  not  from  any  thing  in  myself,  in  the 
face  of  the  world ;  and  I  am  anxious  that  they  should  be  conducted  with  dignity  and 
in  the  good  temper  which  would  be  befitting  the  vast  audience  before  which  it  was 
conducted.  But  when  Judge  Douglas  got  home  from  Washington  and  made  his  first 
speech  in  Chicago,  the  evening  afterward  I  made  some  sort  of  a  reply  to  it.  His 
second  speech  was  made  at  Bloomington,  in  which  he  commented  upon  my  speech 
at  Chicago,  and  said  that  I  had  used  language  ingeniously  contrived  to  conceal  my 
intentions,  or  words  to  that  effect.  Now,  I  understand  that  this  is  an  imputation  up- 
on my  veracity  and  my  candor.  I  do  not  know  what  the  Judge  understood  by  it 
but  in  our  first  discussion  at  Ottawa,  he  led  off  by  charging  a  bargain,  somewhat  cor- 
rupt in  its  character,  upon  Trumbull  and  myself — that  we  had  entered  into  a  bargain, 
one  of  the  terms  of  which  was  that  Trumbull  was  to  abolitionize  the  old  Democratic 
party,  and  I  (Lincoln)  was  to  abolitionize  the  old  Whig  party — I  pretending  to  be 
as  good  an  old  line  Whig  as  ever.  Judge  Douglas  may  not  understand  that  he  im- 
plicated my  truthfulness  and  my  honor,  when  he  said  I  was  doing  one  thing  and  pre- 
tending another ;  and  I  misunderstood  him  if  he  thought  he  was  treating  me  in  a  dig- 
nified way,  as  a  man  of  honor  and  truth,  as  he  now  claims  he  was  disposed  to  treat 
me.  Even  after  that  time,  at  Galesburgh,  when  he  brings  forward  an  extract  from  a 
speech  made  at  Chicago,  and  an  extract  from  a  speech  made  at  Charleston,  to  prove 
that  I  was  trying  to  play  a  double  part — that  I  was  trying  to  cheat  the  public,  and 
get  votes  upon  one  set  of  principles  at  one  place  and  upon*  another  set  of  principles 
at  another  place — I  do  not  understand  but  what  he  impeaches  my  honor,  my  veraci- 
ty and  my  candor,  and  because  he  does  this,  I  do  not  understand  that  I  am  bou^d,  if 
I  see  a  truthful  ground  for  it,  to  keep  my  hands  off  of  him.  As  soon  as  I  learned 
that  Judge  Douglas  was  disposed  to  treat  me  in  this  way,  I  signified  in  ou^  of  my 


197 

speeches  that  I  should  be  driven  to  draw  upon  whatever  of  humble  resources  I  might 
have — to  adopt  a  new  course  with  him.  I  was  not  entirely  sure  that  I  should  be 
able  to  hold  my  own  with  him,  but  I  at  least  had  the  purpose  made  to  do  as  well  as 
I  could  upon  him ;  and  now  I  say  that  I  will  not  be  the  first  to  cry  "  hold."  I  think 
it  originated  with  the  Judge,  and  when  he  quits,  I  probably  will.  But  I  shall  not 
ask  any  favors  at  all.  He  asks  me,  or  he  asks  the  audience,  if  I  wish  to  push  this 
matter  to  the  point  of  personal  difficulty.  I  tell  him,  no.  He  did  not  make  a  mis- 
take, in  one  of  his  early  speeches,  when  he  called  me  an  "amiable"  man,  though 
perhaps  he  did  when  he  called  me  an  "  intelligent "  man.  It  really  hurts  me  very 
much  to  suppose  that  I  have  wronged  any  body  on  earth.  I  again  tell  him,  no !  I 
very  much  prefer,  when  this  canvass  shall  be  over,  however  it  may  result,  that  we  at 
least  part  without  any  bitter  recollections  of  personal  difficulties. 

The  Judge,  in  his  concluding  speech  at  Galesburgh,  says  that  I  was  pushing  this 
matter  to  a  personal  difficulty,  to  avoid  the  responsibility  for  the  enormity  of  my 
principles.  I  say  to  the  Judge  and  this  audience  now,  that  I  will  again  state  our 
principles  as  well  as  I  hastily  can  in  all  their  enormity,  and  if  the  Judge  hereafter 
chooses  to  confine  himself  to  a  war  upon  these  principles,  he  will  probably  not  find 
me  departing  from  the  same  course. 

We  have  in  this  nation  this  element  of  domestic  slavery.  It  is  a  matter  of  absolute 
certainty  that  it  is  a  disturbing  element.  It  is  the  opinion  of  all  the  great  men  who  have 
axpressed  an  opinion  upon  it,  that  it  is  a  dangerous  element.  We  keep  up  a  controversy 
in  regard  to  it.  That  controversy  necessarily  springs  from  difference  of  opinion,  and  if 
we  can  learn  exactly — can  reduce  to  the  lowest  elements — what  that  difference  of  opin- 
ion is,  we  perhaps  shall  be  better  prepared  for  discussing  the  different  systems  of  policy 
that  we  would  propose  in  regard  to  that  disturbing  element.  I  suggest  that  the  difference 
of  opinion,  reduced  to  its  lowest  terms,  is  no  other  than  the  difference  between  the  men 
who  think  slavery  a  wrong  and  those  who  do  not  think  it  wrong.  The  Republican 
party  think  it  wrong — we  think  it  is  a  moral,  a  social  and  a  political  wrong.  We 
think  it  as  a  wrong  not  confining  itself  merely  to  the  persons  or  the  States  where  it 
exists,  but  that  it  is  a  wrong  in  its  tendency,  to  say  the  least,  that  extends  itself  to 
the  existence  of  the  whole  nation.  Because  we  think  it  wrong,  we  propose  a  course 
of  policy  that  shall  deal  with  it  as  a  wrong.  We  deal  with  it  as  with  any  other 
wrong,  in  so  far  as  we  can  prevent  its  growing  any  larger,  and  so  deal  with  it  that  in 
the  run  of  time  there  may  he  some  promise  of  an  end  to  it.  We  have  a  due  regard 
to  the  actual  presence  of  it  amongst  us  and  the  difficulties  of  getting  rid  of  it  in  any 
satisfactory  way,  and  all  the  Constitutional  obligations  thrown  about  it.  I  suppose 
that  in  reference  both  to  its  actual  existence  in  the  nation,  and  to  our  Constitutional 
obligations,  we  have  no  right  at  all  to  disturb  it  in  the  States  where  it  exists,  arid  we 
profess  that  we  have  no  more  inclination  to  disturb  it  than  we  have  the  right  to  do  it 
We  go  further  than  that ;  we  don't  propose  to  disturb  it  where,  in  one  instance,  we 
think  the  Constitution  would  permit  us.  We  think  the  Constitution  would  permit  us 
to  disturb  it  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Still  we  do  not  propose  to  do  that,  unless 
it  should  be  in  terms  which  I  don't  suppose  the  nation  is  very  likely  soon  to  agiee  to 
— the  terms  of  making  the  emancipation  gradual  and  compensating  the  unwilling 
owners.  Where  we  suppose  we  have  the  Constitutional  right,  we  restrain  ourselvtj 
in  reference  to  the  actual  existence  of  the  institution  and  the  difficulties  thrown  about 
it.  We  also  oppose  it  as  an  evil  so  far  as  it  seeks  to  spread  itself.  We  insist  on  the 
policy  that  shall  restrict  it  to  its  present  limits.  We  don't  suppose  that  in  doing  this 
we  violate  any  thing  due  to  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution,  or  any  thing  due  to 
the  Constitutional  guaranties  thrown  around  it. 

We  oppose  the  Dred  Scott  decision  in  a  certain  way,  upon  which  I  ought  perhaps 
to  address  you  a  few  words.  We  do  not  propose  that  when  Dred  Scott  lias  been  de- 
cided to  be  a  slave  by  the  court,  we,  as  a  mob,  will  decide  him  to  be  free.  We  do 
not  propose  that,  when  any  other  one,  or  one  thousand,  shall  be  decided  by  that  court 
to  be  slaves,  we  will  in  any  violent  way  disturb  the  rights  of  property  thus  settled 
but  we  nevertheless  do  oppose  that  decision  as  a  political  rule,  which  shall  be  bind 


198 

ing  on  the  voter  to  vote  for  nobody  who  thinks  it  wrong,  which  shall  be  binding  on 
the  members  of  Congress  or  the  President  to  favor  no  measure  that  does  not  actually 
concur  with  the  principles  of  that  decision.  We  do  not  propose  to  be  bound  by  it 
as  a  political  rule  in  that  way,  because  we  think  it  lays  the  foundation  not  merely  of 
enlarging  and  spreading  out  what  we  consider  an  evil,  but  it  lays  the  foundation  for 
spreading  that  evil  into  the  States  themselves.  We  propose  so  resisting  it  as  to 
have  it  reversed  if  we  can,  and  a  new  judicial  rule  established  upon  this  subject. 

I  will  add  this,  that  if  there  be  any  man  who  does  not  believe  that  slavery  is 
wrong  in  the  three  aspects  which  I  have  mentioned,  or  in  any  one  of  them,  that  man 
is  misplaced,  and  ought  to  leave  us.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  if  there  be  any  man 
in  the  Republican  party  who  is  impatient  over  the  necessity  springing  from  its  ac- 
tual presence,  and  is  impatient  of  the  Constitutional  guaranties  thrown  around  it, 
and  would  act  in  disregard  of  these,  he  too  is  misplaced,  standing  with  us.  lie  will 
find  his  place  somewhere  else ;  for  we  have  a  due  regard,  so  far  as  we  are  capable 
of  understanding  them,  for  all  these  things.  This,  gentlemen,  as  well  as  I  can  give 
it,  is  a  plain  statement  of  our  principles  in  all  their  enormity. 

I  will  Miy  now  that  there  is  a  sentiment  in  the  country  contrary  to  me — a  sen- 
timent which  holds  that  slavery  is  not  wrong,  and  therefore  it  goes  for  the  policy  that 
does  not  propose  dealing  with  it  as  a  wrong.  That  policy  is  the  Democratic  policy, 
and  that  sentiment  is  the  Democratic  sentiment.  If  there  be  a  doubt  in  the  mind 
of  any  one  of  this  vast  audience  that  this  is  really  the  central  idea  of  the  Democrat- 
ic  party,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  1  ask  him  to  bear  with  me  while  I  state  a  few 
things  tending,  as  I  think,  to  prove  that  proposition.  In  the  first  place,  the  leading 
man — I  think  I  may  do  my  friend  Judge  Douglas  the  honor  of  calling  him  such — 
advocating  the  present  Democratic  policy,  never  himself  says  it  is  wrong.  He 
has  the  high  distinction,  so  far  as  I  know,  of  never  having  said  slavery  is  either 
right  or  wrong.  Almost  every  body  else  says  one  or  the  other,  but  the  Judge  never 
does.  If  there  be  a  man  in  the  Democratic  party  who  thinks  it  is  wrong,  and  yet 
clings  to  that  party,  I  suggest  to  him  in  the  first  place  that  his  leader  don't  talk  as 
he  does,  for  he  never  says  that  it  is  wrong.  In  the  second  place,  I  suggest  to  him 
that  it'  he  will  examine  the  policy  proposed  to  be  carried  forward,  he  will  find  that 
he  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  any  thing  wrong  in  ir.  If  you  will 
examine  the  arguments  that  are  made  on  it,  you  will  find  that  every  one  carefully 
excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  any  thing  wrong  in  slavery.  Perhaps  that  Demo- 
crat who  says  he  is  as  much  opposed  to  slavery  as  I  am,  will  tell  me  that  I  am 
wrong  about  this.  I  wish  him  to  examine  his  own  course  in  regard  to  this  mat- 
ter a  moment,  and  then  see  if  his  opinion  will  not  be  changed  a  little.  You  say 
it  is  wrong ;  but  don't  you  constantly  object  to  any  body  else  saying  so  ?  Do  you 
not  constantly  argue  that  this  is  not  the  right  place  to  oppose  it  ?  You  say  it  must 
not  be  opposed  in  the  free  States,  because  slavery  is  not  here  ;  it  must  not  be  op- 
posed in  the  slave  States,  because  it  is  there ;  it  must  not  be  opposed  in  politics,  be- 
cause that  will  make  a  fuss ;  it  must  not  be  opposed  in  the  pulpit,  because  it  is  not 
religion.  Then  where  is  the  place  to  oppose  it  ?  There  is  no  suitable  place  to  op 
pose  it.  There  is  no  plan  in  the  country  to  oppose  this  evil  overspreading  the 
continent,  which  you  say  yourself  is  coming.  Frank  Blair  and  Gratz  Brown  tried 
to  get  up  a  system  of  gradual  emancipation  in  Missouri,  had  an  election  in  Au- 
gust arid  got  beat,  and  you,  Mr.  Democrat,  threw  up  your  hat,  and  hallooed  "  hur- 
ra for  Democracy."  So  I  say  again,  that  in  regard  to  the  arguments  that  are 
made,  when  Judge  Douglas  says  he  "  don't  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  up  or  voted 
down,"  whether  he  means  that  as  an  individual  expression  of  sentiment,  or  only 
as  a  sort  of  statement  of  his  views  on  national  policy,  it  is  alike  true  to  say  that 
he  can  thus  argue  logically  if  he  don't  see  any  thing  wrong  in  it ;  but  he  can- 
not say  so  logically  if  he  admits  that  slavery  is  wrong.  He  cannot  say  that  he 
would  as  soon  see  a  wrong  voted  up  as  voted  down.  When  Judge  Douglas  says 
that  whoever  or  whatever  community  wants  slaves,  they  have  a  right  to  have  them, 
Be  is  perfectly  logical  if  there  is  nothing  wrong  in  the  institution ;  but  if  you  admit 


199 

that  it  is  wrong,  he  cannot  logically  say  that  any  body  has  a  right  to  do  wrong.  When 
he  says  that  slave  property  and  horse  and  hog  property  are,  alike,  to  be  allowed  to  go 
into  the  Territories,  upon  the  principles  of  equality,  he  is  reasoning  truly,  if  there 
is  no  difference  between  them  as  property ;  but  if  the  one  is  property,  held  right- 
fully, and  the  other  is  wrong,  then  there  is  no  equality  between  the  right  and  wrong ; 
so  that,  turn  it  in  any  way  you  can,  in  all  the  arguments  sustaining  the  Democratic 
policy,  and  in  that  policy  itself,  there  is  a  careful,  studied  exclusion  of  the  idea  that 
there  is  any  thing  wrong  in  slavery.  Let  us  understand  this.  I  am  not,  just  herej 
trying  to  prove  that  we  are  right  and  they  are  wrong.  I  have  been  stating  where 
we  and  they  stand,  and  trying  to  show  what  is  the  real  difference  between  us ; 
aril  I  now  say  that  whenever  we  can  get  the  question  distinctly  stated — can  get  all 
these  men  who  believe  that  slavery  is  in  some  of  these  respects  wrong,  to  stand  and 
act  with  us  in  treating  it  as  a  wrong — then,  and  not  till  then,  I  think  we  will  in 
some  way  come  to  an  end  of  this  slavery  agitation. 


MR.  DOUGLAS'S  REPLY. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  Permit  me  to  say  that  unless  silence  is  observed  it 
will  be  impossible  for  me  to  be  heard  by  this  immense  crowd,  and  my  friends 
can  confer  no  higher  favor  upon  me  than  by  omitting  all  expressions  of  applause 
or  approbation.  1  desire  to  be  heard  rather  than  to  be  applauded.  I  wish  to  ad- 
dress myself  to  your  reason,  your  judgment,  your  sense  of  justice,  and  not  to  your 
passions. 

I  regret  that  Mr.  Lincoln  should  have  deemed  it  proper  for  him  to  again  in- 
dulge in  gross  personalities  and  base  insinuations  in  regard  to  the  Springfield  reso- 
lutions. It  has  imposed  upon  me  the  necessity  of  using  some  portion  of  my  time 
for  the  purpose  of  calling  your  attention  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  it  will  then 
be  for  you  to  say  what  you  think  of  a  man  who  can  predicate  such  a  charge 
upon  the  circumstances  as  he  has  in  this.  I  had  seen  the  platform  adopted  by  a  Re- 
publican Congressional  Convention  held  in  Aurora,  the  Second  Congressional  Dis-- 
trict,  in  September,  1854,  published  as  purporting  to  be  the  platform  of  the  Re- 
publican party.  That  platform  declared  that  the  Republican  party  was  pledged 
never  to  admit  another  slave  State  into  the  Union,  and  also  that  it  pledged  to 
prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  not  only  all  that  we 
then  had,  but  all  that  we  should  thereafter  acquire,  and  to  repeal  unconditionally 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  prohibit 
the  slave-trade  between  the  different  States.  These  and  other  articles  against  sla- 
very were  contained  in  this  platform,  and  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Republican 
Congressional  Convention  in  that  District.  I  had  also  seen  that  the  Republican 
Congressional  Conventions  at  Rockford,  in  the  First  District,  and  at  Bloomington, 
in  the  Third,  had  adopted  the  same  platform  that  year,  nearly  word  for  word,  and 
Nid  declared  it  to  be  the  platform  of  the  Republican  party.  I  had  noticed  that 
Majti  Thomas  L.  Harris,  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  Springfield  District, 
had  referred  to  that  platform  in  a  speech  in  Congress  as  having  been  adopted  by 
the  first  Republican  State  Convention  which  assembled  in  Illinois.  When  I  had 
occasion  to  use  the  fact  in  this  canvass,  I  wrote  to  Major  Harris  to  know  on  what 
day  that  Convention  was  held,  and  to  ask  him  to  send  me  its  proceedings.  He  being 
sick,  Charles  H.  Lanphier  answered  my  letter  by  sending  me  the  published  proceed- 
ings of  the  Convention  held  at  Springfield  on  the  5th  of  October,  1854,  as  they  ap- 
peared in  the  report  of  the  State  Register.  I  read  those  resolutions  from  that 
newspaper  the  same  as  any  of  you  would  refer  back  arid  quote  any  fact  from  the 
files  of  a  newspaper  which  had  published  it.  Mr.  Lincoln  pretends  that  after  I 
had  so  quoted  those  resolutions  he  discovered  that  they  had  never  been  adopted  at 
Springfield.  He  does  not  deny  their  adoption  by  the  Republican  party  at  Aurora, 


200 

at  Bloomington,  and  at  Rockford,  and  by  nearly  all  the  Republican  County  Conven- 
tions in  Northern  Illinois  where  his  party  is  in  a  majority,  but  merely  because  they 
were  not  adopted  on  the  "  spot "  on  which  I  said  they  were,  he  chooses  to  quibble 
about  the  place  rather  than  meet  and  discuss  the  merits  of  the  resolutions  themselves. 
I  stated  when  I  quoted  them  that  I  did  so  from  the  State  Register.  I  gave  my  au- 
thority. Lincoln  believed  at  the  time,  as  he  has  since  admitted,  that  they  had  beei. 
adopted  at  Springfield,  as  published.  Does  he  believe  now,  that  I  did  not  tell  the 
truth  when  I  quoted  those  resolutions  ?  He  knows,  in  his  heart,  that  I  quoted 
them  in  good  faith,  believing,  at  the  time,  that  they  had  been  adopted  at  Springfield. 
I  would  consider  myself  an  infamous  wretch,  if,  under  such  circumstances,  I  could 
charge  any  man  with  being  a  party  to  a  trick  or  a  fraud.  And  I  will  tell  him,  too, 
that  it  will  not  do  to  charge  a  forgery  on  Charles  H.  Lanphier  or  Thomas  L.  Harris. 
No  man  on  earth,  who  knows  them,  and  knows  Lincoln,  would  take  his  oath  against 
their  word.  There  are  not  two  men  in  the  State  of  Illinois  who  have  higher  charac- 
ters for  truth,  for  integrity,  for  moral  character,  and  for  elevation  of  tone,  as  gentle- 
men, than  Mr.  Lanphier  and  Mr.  Harris.  Any  man  who  attempts  to  make  such 
charges  as  Mr.  Lincoln  has  indulged  in  against  them,  only  proclaims  himself  a  slan- 
derer. 

I  will  now  show  you  that  I  stated  with  entire  fairness,  as  soon  as  it  was  made 
known  to  me,  that  there  was  a  mistake  about  the  spot  where  the  resolutions  had  been 
adopted,  although  their  truthfulness,  as  a  declaration  of  the  principles  of  the  Repub- 
lican party,  had  not  and  could  not  be  questioned.  I  did  not  wait  for  Lincoln  to  point 
out  the  mistake ;  but  the  moment  I  discovered  it,  I  made  a  speech,  and  published  it 
to  the  world,  correcting  the  error.  I  corrected  it  myself,  as  a  gentleman,  and  an 
honest  man,  and  as  I  always  feel  proud  to  do  when  I  have  made  a  mistake.  I  wish 
Mr.  Lincoln  could  show  that  he  has  acted  with  equal  fairness,  and  truthfulness,  when 
I  have  convinced  him  that  he  has  been  mistaken.  I  will  give  you  an  illustration  to 
show  you  how  he  acts  in  a  similar  case :  In  a  speech  at  Springfield,  he  charged 
Chief  Justice  Taney,  and  his  associates,  President  Pierce,  President  Buchanan,  and 
myself,  with  having  entered  into  a  conspiracy  at  the  time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  in- 
troduced, by  which  the  Dred  Scott  decision  was  to  be  made  by  the  Supreme  Court, 
in  order  to  carry  slavery  every  where  under  the  Constitution.  I  called  his  attention 
to  the  fact,  that  at  the  time  alluded  to,  to  wit :  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill, 
it  was  not  possible  that  such  a  conspiracy  could  have  been  entered  into,  for  the  rea- 
son that  the  Dred  Scott  case  had  never  been  taken  before  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
was  not  taken  before  it  for  a  year  after ;  and  I  asked  him  to  take  back  that  charge. 
Did  he  do  it  ?  I  showed  him  that  it  was  impossible  that  the  charge  could  be  true  ; 
1  proved  it  by  the  record,  and  I  then  called  upon  him  to  retract  his  false  charge. 
What  was  his  answer  ?  Instead  of  coming  oujt  like  an  honest  man  and  doing  so, 
he  iciterated  the  charge,  and  said  that  if  the  case  had  not  gone  up  to  the  Supreme 
Court  from  the  courts  of  Missouri  at  the  time  he  charged  that  the  Judges  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  entered  into  the  conspiracy,  yet,  that  there  was  an  understanding  with 
the  Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  that  they  would  take  it  up.  I  have  since 
asked  him  who  the  Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  were,  but  he  could  not  tell,  and 
why  ?  Because  there  were  no  such  Democratic  owners  in  existence.  Dred  Scott 
at  the  time  was  owned  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chaffee,  an  Abolition  member  of  Congress, 
of  Springfield,  Massachusetts,  in  right  of  his  wife.  He  was  owned  by  one  of  Lin- 
coln's friends,  and  not  by  Democrats  at  all ;  his  case  was  conducted  in  court  by  Abo- 
lition lawyers,  so  that  both  the  prosecution  and  the  defense  were  in  the  hands  of  the 
Abolition  political  friends  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Notwithstanding  I  thus  proved  by  the 
record  that  his  charge  against  the  Supreme  Court  was  false,  instead  of  taking  it  back, 
he  resorted  to  another  false  charge  to  sustain  the  infamy  of  it.  He  also  charged 
President  Buchanan  with  having  been  a  party  to  the  conspiracy.  I  directed  his  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  charge  could  not  possibly  be  true,  for  the  reason  that  at 
the  time  specified,  Mr.  Buchanan  was  not  in  America,  but  was  three  thousand  miles 
off,  representing  the  United  States  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  and  had  been  there 


201 

for  a  year  previous,  and  did  not  return  until  three  years  afterward.  Yet,  I  never 
could  get  Mr.  Lincoln  to  take  back  his  false  charge,  although  I  have  called  upon  him 
over  and  over  again.  He  refuses  to  do  it,  and  either  remains  silent,  or  resorts  to 
other  tricks  to  try  and  palm  his  slander  off  on  the  country.  Therein  you  will  find 
the  difference  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself.  When  I  make  a  mistake,  as  an 
honest  man,  I  correct  it  without  being  asked  to  do  so,  but  when  he  nrokes  a  false 
charge  he  sticks  to  it,  and  never  corrects  it  One  word  more  in  regard  to  these  reso- 
lutions :  I  quoted  them  at  Ottawa  merely  to  ask  Mr.  Lincoln  whether  he  stood  on 
that  platform.  That  was  the  purpose  for  which  I  quoted  them.  I  did  not  think 
that  I  had  a  right  to  put  idle  questions  to  him,  and  I  first  laid  a  foundation  for  my 
questions  by  showing  that  the  principles  which  I  wished  him  either  to  affirm  or  deny 
had  been  adopted  by  some  portion  of  his  friends,  at  least  as  their  creed.  Hence  I 
read  the  resolutions,  and  put  the  questions  to  him,  and  he  then  refused  to  answer 
them.  Subsequently,  one  week  afterward,  he  did  answer  a  part  of  them,  but  the 
others  he  has  not  answered  up  to  this  day. 

Now,  let  me  call  your  attention  for  a  moment  to  the  answers  which  Mr.  Lincoln 
made  at  Freeport  to  the  questions  which  I  propounded  him  at  Ottawa,  based  upon 
the  platform  adopted  by  a  majority  of  the  Abolition  counties  of  the  State,  which  now 
as  then  supported  him.  In  answer  to  my  question  whether  he  indorsed  the  Black 
Republican  principle  of  "no  more  slave  States,"  he  answered  that  he  was  riot 
pledged  against  the  admission  of  any  more  slave  States,  but  that  he  would  be  very 
sorry  if  he  should  ever  be  placed  in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to  vote  on  the 
question  ;  that  he  would  rejoice  to  know  that  no  more  slave  States  would  be  admitted 
into  the  Union;  "but,"  he  added,  "if  slavery  shall  be  kept  out  of  the  Territories 
during  the  territorial  existence  of  any  one  given  Territory,  and  then  the  people  shall, 
having  a  fair  chance  and  a  clear  field  when  they  come  to  adopt  the  Constitution,  do 
such  an  extraordinary  thing  as  to  adopt  a  slave  Constitution,  uninfluenced  by  the 
actual  presence  of  the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if  we  own  the 
country,  but  to  admit  them  into  'the  Union."  The  point  I  wish  him  to  answer  is 
this :  Suppose  Congress  should  not  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territory,  and  it  applied 
for  admission  with  a  Constitution  recognizing  slavery,  then  how  would  he  vote  ?  His 
answer  at  Freeport  does  not  apply  to  any  territory  in  America.  I  ask  you  [turn- 
ing to  Lincoln],  will  you  vote  to  admit  Kansas  into  the  Union,  with  just  such  a  Con- 
stitution as  her  people  want,  with  slavery  or  without,  as  they  shall  determine  ?  He 
will  not  answer.  I  have  put  that  question  to  him  time  and  time  again,  and  have  not 
been  able  to  get  an  answer  out  of  him.  I  ask  you  again,  Lincoln,  will  you  vote  to 
admit  New  Mexico  when  she  has  the  requisite  population  with  such  a  Constitution  a& 
her  people  adopt,  either  recognizing  slavery  or  not,  as  they  shall  determine  ?  He  will 
not  answer.  I  put  the  same  question  to  him  in  reference  to  Oregon  and  the 
new  States  to  be  carved  out  of  Texas',  in  pursuance  of  the  contract  between  Texa« 
and  the  United  States,  and  he  will  not  answer.  He  will  not  answer  these  questions 
in  reference  to  any  territory  now  in  existence ;  but  says,  that  if  Congress  should  pro- 
hibit slavery  in  a  Territory,  and  when  its  people  asked  for  admission  as  a  State,  they 
should  adopt  slavery  as  one  of  their  institutions,  that  he  supposes  he  would  have  to 
let  it  come  in.  I  submit  to  you  whether  that  answer  of  his  to  my  question  does  not 
justify  roe  in  saying  that  he  has  a  fertile  genius  in  devising  language  to  conceal  his 
thoughts.  I  ask  you  whether  there  is  an  intelligent  man  in  America  who  does  not 
believe,  that  that  answer  was  made  for  the  purpose  of  concealing  what  he  intended 
to  do.  He  wished  to  make  the  old  line  Whigs  believe  that  he  would  stand  by  the 
Compromise  measures  of  1850,  which  declared  that  the  States  might  come  into  the 
Union  with  slavery,  or  without,  as  they  pleased,  while  Lovejoy  and  his  Abolition 
allies  up  North,  explained  to  the  Abolitionists,  that  in  taking  this  ground  he  preached 
good  Abolition  doctrine,  because  his  proviso  would  not  apply  to  any  territory  in 
America,  and  therefore  there  was  no  chance  of  his  being  governed  by  it.  It  would 
have  been  quite  easy  for  him  to  have  said,  that  he  would  let  the  people  of  a  State  do  just 
as  they  pleased,  if  he  desired  to  convey  such  an  idea.  Why  did  he  not  do  it?  He 


202 

would  not  answer  my  question  directly,  because  up  north,  the  Abolition  creed  de- 
clares that  there  shall  be  no  more  slave  States,  while  down  south,  in  Adams  county, 
in  Coles,  and  in  Sangaraon,  he  and  his  friends  are  afraid  to  advance  that  doctrine. 
Therefore,  he  gives  an  evasive  and  equivocal  answer,  to  be  construed  one  way  in  the 
south  and  another  way  in  the  north,  which,  when  analyzed,  it  is  apparent  is  not  an 
answer  at  all  with  reference  to  any  territory  now  in  existence. 

Mr.  Lincoln  complains  that,  in  my  speech  the  other  day  at  Galesburgh,  I  read  an 
extract  from  a  speech  delivered  by  him  at  Chicago,  and  then  another  from  his 
«peech  at  Charleston,  and  compared  them,  thus  showing  the  people  that  he  had 
one  set  of  principles  in  one  part  of  the  State  and  another  in  the  other  part. 
And  how  does  he  answer  that  charge  ?  Why,  he  quotes  from  his  Charleston  speech 
as  I  quoted  from  it,  and  then  quotes  another  extract  from  a  Speech  which  he  made 
at  another  place,  which  he  says  is  the  same  as  the  extract  from  his  speech  at  Charles- 
ton ;  but  he  does  not  quote  the  extract  from  his  Chicago  speech,  upon  wliich  I  con- 
victed him  of  double-dealing.  I  quoted  from  his  Chicago  speech  to  prove  that  he 
held  one  set  of  principles  up  north  among  the  Abolitionists,  and  from  his  Charleston 
speech  to  prove  that  he  held  another  set  down  at  Charleston  and  in  southern  Illinois. 
In  his  answer  to  this  charge,  he  ignores  entirely  his  Chicago  speech,  and  merely 
argues  that  he  said  the  same  thing  which  he  said  at  Charleston  at  another  place. 
If  he  did,  it  follows  that  he  has  twice,  instead  of  once,  held  one  creed  in  one  part  of 
the  State  and  a  different  creed  in  another  part.  Up  at  Chicago,  in  the  opening  of  the 
campaign,  he  reviewed  my  reception  speech,  and  undertook  to  answer  my  argument 
attacking  his  favorite  doctrine  of  negro  equality.  I  had  shown  that  it  was  a  falsifi- 
cation of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  pretend  that  that  instrument  applied  to 
and  included  negroes  in  the  clause  declaring  that  all  men  were  created  equal.  What 
was  Lincoln's  reply  ?  I  will  read  from  his  Chicago  speech  and  the  one  which  he  did 
not  quote,  and  dare  not  quote,  in  this  part  of  the  State.  He  said  : 

"  I  should  like  to  know,  if  taking  this  old  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  de- 
clares that  all  men  are  equal  upon  principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it,  where  will 
it  stop  ?  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  may  not  another  man  say 
it  does  not  mean  another  man  ?  If  that  declaration  is  not  the  truth,  let  us  get  this 
statute  book  in  which  we  find  it  and  tear  it  out/' 

There  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  told  the  Abolitionists  of  Chicago  that  if  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence  did  not  declare  that  the  negro  was  created  by  the  Almighty 
the  equal  of  the  white  man,  that  you  ought  to  take  that  instrument  and  tear  out  the 
clause  which  says  that  all  men  were  created  equal.  But  let  me  call  your  attention 
to  another  part  of  the  same  speech.  You  know  that  in  his  Charleston  speech,  an 
extract  from  which  he  has  read,  he  declared  that  the  negro  belongs  to  an  inferior 
race;  is  physically  inferior  to  the  white  man,  and  should  always  be  kept  in  an  infe- 
rior position.  I  will  now  read  to  you  what  -he  said  at  Chicago  on  that  point.  In 
concluding  his  speech  at  that  place,  he  remarked : 

"  My  friends,  I  have  detained  you  about  as  long  as  I  desire  to  do,  and  I  have 
only  to  say  let  us  discard  all  this  quibbling  about  this  man  and  the  other  man — this 
race  and  that  race,  and  the  other  race  being  inferior,  and  therefore  they  must  be 
placed  in  an  inferior  position,  discarding  our  standard  that  we  have  left  us.  Let  us 
discard  all  these  things,  and  unite  as  one  people  throughout  this  land  until  we  shall 
once  more  stand  up  declaring  that  all  men  are  created  equal." 

Thus  you  see,  that  when  addressing  the  Chicago  Abolitionists  he  declared  that  all 
distinctions  of  race  must  be  discarded  and  blotted  out,  because  the  negro  stood  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  white  man ;  that  if  one  man  said  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence did  not  mean  a  negro  when  it  declared  all  men  created  equal,  that  another  man 
would  say  that  it  did  not  mean  another  man ;  and  hence  we  ought  to  discard  all  dif- 
ference between  the  negro  race  and  all  other  races,  and  declare  them  all  created 
equal.  Did  old  Giddings,  when  he  came  down  among  you  four  years  ago,  preach 
more  radical  Abolitionism  than  this  ?  Did  Lovejoy,  or  Lloyd  Garrison,  or  Wendell 
Phillips,  or  Fred  Douglass,  ever  take  higher  Abolition  grounds  than  that?  Lincoln 


203 

told  you  that  I  had  charged  him  with  getting  up  these  personal  attacks  to  conceal 
the  enormity  of  his  principles,  and  then  commenced  talking  about  something  else, 
omitting  to  quote  this  part  of  his  Chicago  speech  which  contained  the  enormity  of 
his  principles  to  which  I  alluded.  He  knew  that  I  alluded  to  his  negro-equality 
doctrines  when  I  spoke  of  the  enormity  of  his  principles,  yet  he  did  not  find  it  con- 
venient to  answer  on  that  point.  Having  shown  you  what  he  said  in  his  Chicago 
speech  in  reference  to  negroes  being  created  equal  to  white  men,  and  about  discarding 
all  distinctions  between  the  two  races,  I  will  again  read  to  you  what  he  said  at 
Charleston : 

"  I  will  say  then,  that  I  am  not  nor  ever  have  been  in  favor  of  bringing  about 
in  any  way,  the  social  and  political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races ;  that  I  am 
not  nor  ever  have  been  in  favor  of  making  voters  of  the  the  free  negroes,  or  jurors, 
or  qualifying  them  to  hold  office,  or  having  them  to  marry  with  white  people.  I 
will  say  in  addition,  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  white  and 
black  races,  which,  I  suppose,  will  forever  forbid  the  two  races  living  together  upon 
terms  of  social  and  political  equality,  and  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live,  that  while 
they  do  remain  together,  there  must  be  the  position  of  superior  and  inferior,  that  I 
as  much  as  any  other  man  am  in  favor  of  the  superior  position  being  assigned  to  the 
white  man." 

A  voice—"  That's  the  doctrine." 

Mr.  Douglas — Yes,  sir,  that  is  good  doctrine,  but  Mr.  Lincoln  is  afraid  to  advo- 
cate it  in  the  latitude  of  Chicago,  where  he  hopes  to  get  his  votes.  It  is  good  doctrine 
in  the  anti- Abolition  counties  for  him,  and  his  Chicago  speech  is  good  doctrine  in  the 
Abolition  counties.  I  assert,  on  the  authority  of  these  two  speeches  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
that  he  holds  one  set  of  principles  in  the  Abolition  counties,  and  a  different  and  con- 
tradictory set  in  the  other  counties.  I  do  not  question  that  he  said  at  Ottawa  what 
he  quoted,  but  that  only  convicts  him  further,  by  proving  that  he  has  twice  contra- 
dicted himself  instead  of  once.  Let  me  ask  him  why  he  cannot  avow  his  principles 
the  same  in  the  North  as  in  the  South — the  same  in  every  county,  if  he  has  a  con- 
viction that  they  are  just?  But  I  forgot — he  would  not  be  a  Republican,  if  his 
principles  would  apply  alike  to  every  part  of  the  country.  The  party  to  which  he 
belongs  is  bounded  and  limited  by  geographical  lines.  With  their  principles  they 
cannot  even  cross  the  Mississippi  river  on  your  ferry-boats.  They  cannot  cross 
over  the  Ohio  into  Kentucky.  Lincoln  himself  cannot  visit  the  land  of  his  fathers, 
the  scenes  of  his  childhood,  the  graves  of  his  ancestors,  and  carry  his  Abolition  prin- 
ciples, as  he  declared  them  at  Chicago^  with  him. 

This  Republican  organization  appeals  to  the  North  against  the  South ;  it  appeals  to 
northern  passion,  northern  prejudice,  and  northern  ambition,  against  southern  people, 
southern  States,  and  southern  institutions,  and  its  only  hope  of  success  is  by  that 
appeal.  Mr.  Lincoln  goes  on  to  justify  himself  in  making  a  war  upon  slavery,  upon 
the  ground  that  Frank  Blair  and  Gratz  Brown  did  not  succeed  in  their  warfare  upon 
the  institutions  in  Missouri.  Frank  Blair  was  elected  to  Congress  in  1856,  from 
the  State  of  Missouri,  as  a  Buchanan  Democrat,  and  he  turned  Freemonter  after  the 
people  elected  him,  thus  belonging  to  one  party  before  his  election,  and  another  after- 
ward. What  right  then  had  he  to  expect,  after  having  thus  cheated  his  constituency, 
that  they  would  support  him  at  another  election  ?  Mr.  Lincoln  thinks  that  it  is  his 
duty  to  preach  a  crusade  in  the  free  States  against  slavery,  because  it  is  a  crime,  as 
he  believes,  and  ought  to  be  extinguished ;  and  because  the  people  of  the  slave 
States  will  never  abolish  it.  How  is  he  going  to  abolish  it  ?  Down  in  the  southern 
part  of  the  State  he  takes  the  ground  openly  that  he  will  not  interfere  with  slavery 
where  it  exists,  and  says  that  he  is  not  now  and  never  was  in  favor  of  interfering 
with  slavery  where  it  exists  in  the  States.  Well,  if  he  is  not  in  favor  of  that,  how 
does  he  expect  to  bring  slavery  in  a  course  of  ultimate  extinction  ?  How  can  he 
extinguish  it  in  Kentucky,  in  Virginia,  in  all  the  slave  States  by  his  policy,  if  he 
will  not  pursue  a  policy  which  will  interfere  with  it  hi  the  States  where  it  exists  ? 


204 

In  his  speech  at  Springfield  before  the  Abolition  or  Republican  Convention,  he 
declared  his  hostility  to  any  more  slave  States  in  this  language : 

"  Under  the  operation  of  that  policy  the  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has 
constantly  augmented.  In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been 
reached  and  passed.  'A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this 
Government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect 
the  Union  to  be  dissolved — I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall — but  I  do  expect  it  will 
cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  oppo- 
nents of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  arid  place  it  where  the  public 
mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction ;  or,  its 
advocates  will  push  it  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States — 
old  as  well  as  new,  north  as  well  as  south." 

Mr.  Lincoln  there  told  his  Abolition  friends  that  this  Government  could  not  endure 
permanently,  divided  into  free  and  slave  States  as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  that  it 
must  become  all  free  or  all  slave,  otherwise,  that  the  Government  could  not  exist. 
How  then  does  Lincoln  propose  to  save  the  Union,  unless  by  compelling  all  the 
States  to  become  free,  so  that  the  house  shall  not  be  divided  against  itself?  He 
intends  making  them  all  free ;  he  will  preserve  the  Union  in  that  way,  arid  yet,  he  is 
not  going  to  interfere  with  slavery  any  where  it  now  exists.  How  is  he  going  to 
bring  it  about?  Why,  he  will  agitate,  he  will  induce  the  North  to  agitate  until  the 
South  shall  be  worried  out,  and  forced  to  abolish  slavery.  Let  us  examine  the  policy 
by  which  that  is  to  be  done.  He  first  tells  you  that  he  would  prohibit  slavery  every 
where  in  the  Territories.  He  would  thus  confine  slavery  within  its  present  limits. 
When  he  thus  gets  it  confined,  and  surrounded,  so  that  it  cannot  spread,  the  natural 
laws  of  increase  will  go  on  until  the  negroes  will  be  so  plenty  that  they  cannot  live 
on  the  soil.  He  will  hem  them  in  until  starvation  seizes  them,  and  by  starving  them 
to  death,  he  will  put  slavery  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  If  he  is  not  going 
to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States,  but  intends  to  interfere  and  prohibit  it  in  the 
Territories,  and  thus  smother  slavery  out,  it  naturally  follows,  that  he  can  extinguish 
it  only  by  extinguishing  the  negro  race,  for  his  policy  would  drive  them  to  starvation. 
This  is  the  humane  and  Christian  remedy  that  he  proposes  for  the  great  crime  of 
slavery. 

He  tells  you  that  I  will  not  argue  the  question  whether  slavery  is  right  or  wrong. 
I  tell  you  why  I  will  not  do  it.  I  hold  that  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  each  State  of  this  Union  has  a  right  to  do  as  it  pleases  on  the  subject  of 
slavery.  In  Illinois  we  have  exercised  that  sovereign  right  by  prohibiting  slavery 
within  our  own  limits.  I  approve  of  that  line  of  policy.  We  have  performed  our 
whole  duty  in  Illinois.  We  have  gone  as  far  as  we  have  a  right  to  go  under  the 
Constitution  of  our  common  country.  It  is  none  of  our  business  whether  slavery 
exists  in  Missouri  or  not.  Missouri  is  a  sovereign  State  of  this  Union,  and  has  the 
same  right  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  herself  that  Illinois  has  to  decide  it  for 
herself.  Hence  I  do  not  choose  to  occupy  the  time  allotted  to  me  in  discussing  a 
question  that  we  have  no  right  to  act  upon.  I  thought  that  you  desired  to  hear  us 
upon  those  questions  coming  within  our  Constitutional  power  or  action.  Lincoln  will 
not  discuss  these.  What  one  question  has  he  discussed  that  comes  within  the  power 
or  calls  for  the  action  or  interference  of  an  United  States  Senator  ?  He  is  going  to 
discuss  the  rightfulness  of  slavery  when  Congress  cannot  act  upon  it  either  way 
He  wishes  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  when,  under  the  Consti- 
tution, a  Senator  has  no  right  to  interfere  with  the  decision  of  judicial  tribunals. 
He  wants  your  exclusive  attention  to  two  questions  that  he  has  no  power  to  act 
upon ;  to  two  questions  that  he  could  not  vote  upon  if  he  was  in  Congress,  to  two 
questions  that  are  not  practical,  in  order  to  conceal  your  attention  from  other  ques 
tions  which  he  might  be  required  to  vote  upon  should  he  ever  become  a  member  ot 
Congress.  Ho  tells  you  that  he  does  not  like  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Suppose  he 
does  not,  how  is  he  going  to  help  himself?  He  says  that  he  will  reverse  it.  How 
will  he  reverse  it  ?  I  know  of  bufr  one  mode  of  reversing  judicial  decisions,  and 


205 

that  is  by  appealing  from  the  inferior  to  the  superior  court.  But  I  have  never  yet 
learned  how  or  where  an  appeal  could  be  taken  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States !  The  Dred  Scott  decision  was  pronounced  by  the  highest  tribunal  on 
earth.  From  that  decision  there  is  no  appeal  this  side  of  Heaven.  Yet,  Mr.  Lin- 
coln says  he  is  going  to  reverse  that  decision.  By  what  tribunal  will  he  reverse  it  ? 
Will  he  appeal  to  a  mob?  Does  he  intend  to  appeal  to  violence,  to  Lynch  law? 
Will  he  stir  up  strife  and  rebellion  in  the  land  and  overthrow  the  court  by  violence  ? 
He  does  not  deign  to  tell  you  how  he  will  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  but 
keeps  appealing  each  day  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  political 
meetings  in  the  country.  He  wants  me  to  argue  with  you  the  merits  of  each  point 
of  that  decision  before  this  political  meeting.  I  say  to  you,  with  all  due  respect,  that 
I  choose  to  abide  by  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  they  are  pronounced. 
It  is  not  for  me  to  inquire  after  a  decision  is  made  whether  I  like  it  in  all  the  point* 
or  not.  When  I  used  to  practice  law  with  Lincoln,  I  never  knew  him  to  be  beat  in 
a,  case  that  he  did  not  get  mad  at  the  judge  and  talk  about  appealing ;  and  when  I 
got  beat  I  generally  thought  the  court  was  wrong,  but  I  never  dreamed  of  going  out 
of  the  court-house  and  making  a  stump  speech  to  the  people  against  the  judge, 
merely  because  I  had  found  out  that  I  did  not  know  the  law  as  well  as  he  did.  If 
the  decision  did  not  suit  me,  I  appealed  until  I  got  to  the  Supreme  Court,  and  then 
if  that  court,  the  highest  tribunal  in  the  world,  decided  against  me,  I  was  satisfied, 
because  it  is  the  duty  of  every  law-abiding  man  to  obey  the  constitutions,  the  laws, 
and  the  constituted  authorities.  He  who  attempts  to  stir  up  odium  and  rebellion  in 
the  country  against  the  constituted  authorities,  is  stimulating  the  passions  of  men  to 
resort  to  violence  and  to  mobs  instead  of  to  the  law.  Hence,  I  tell  you  that  I  take 
the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  the  law  of  the  land,  and  I  intend  to  obey 
them  as  such. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  I  will  not  answer  his  question  as  to  what  I  would  do  in 
the  event  of  the  court  making  so  ridiculous  a  decision  as  he  imagines  they  would  by 
deciding  that  the  free  State  of  Illinois  could  not  prohibit  slavery  within  her  own 
limits.  I  told  him  at  Freeport  why  I  would  not  answer  such  a  question.  I  told 
him  that  there  was  not  a  man  possessing  any  brains  in  America,  lawyer  or  not,  who 
ever  dreamed  that  such  a  thing  could  be  done.  I  told  him  then,  as  I  do  now,  that 
by  all  the  principles  set  forth  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  it  is  impossible.  I  told  him 
then,  as  I  do  now,  that  it  is  an  insult  to  men's  understanding,  and  a  gross  calumny  on 
the  court,  to  presume  in  advance  that  it  was  going  to  degrade  itself  so  low  as  to 
make  a  decision  known  to  be  in  direct  violation  of  the  Constitution. 

A  voice — "  The  same  thing  was  said  about  the  Dred  Scott  decision  before  it  passed." 

Mr.  Douglas — Perhaps  you  think  that  the  court  did  the  same  thing  in  reference 
to  the  Dred  Scott  decision :  I  have  heard  a  man  talk  that  way  before.  The  princi- 
ples contained  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision  had  been  affirmed  previously  in  various 
other  decisions.  What  court  or  judge  ever  held  that  a  negro  was  a  citizen  ?  The 
State  courts  had  decided  that  question  over  and  over  again,  and  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  on  that  point  only  affirmed  what  every  court  in  the  land  knew  to  be  the 
law. 

But,  I  will  not  be  drawn  off  into  an  argument  upon  the  merits  of  the  Dred  Scott 
decision.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  crea- 
ted the  Supreme  Court  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  all  disputed  questions  touching 
the  true  construction  of  that  instrument,  and  when  such  decisions  are  pronounced, 
they  are  the  law  of  the  land,  binding  on  every  good  citizen.  Mr.  Lincoln  has  a 
veiy  convenient  mode  of  arguing  upon  the  subject.  He  holds  that  because  he  is  a 
Republican  that  he  is  not  bound  by  the  decisions  of  the  court,  but  that  I  being  a 
Democrat  am  so  bound.  It  may  be  that  Republicans  do  not  hold  themselves  bound 
by  the  laws  of  the  land  and  the  Constitution  of  the  country  as  expounded  by  the 
courts ;  it  may  be  an  article  in  the  Republican  creed  that  men  who  do  not  like  a 
decision,  have  a  right  to  rebel  against  it ;  but  when  Mr.  Lincoln  preaches  that  doc- 
trine, I  think  he  will  find  some  honest  Republican — some  law-abiding  man  in  that 
14 


206 

party — who  will  repudiate  such  a  monstrous  doctrine.  The  decision  in  the  Dred 
Scott  case  is  binding  on  every  American  citizen  alike ;  and  yet  Mr.  Lincoln  argues 
that  the  Republicans  are  not  bound  by  it,  because  they  are  opposed  to  it,  whilst 
Democrats  are  bound  by  it,  because  we  will  not  resist  it.  A  Democrat  cannot 
resist  the  constituted  authorities  of  this  country.  A  Democrat  is  a  law-abiding  man, 
a  Democrat  stands  by  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  and  relies  upon  liberty  as  pro- 
tected by  law,  and  not  upon  mob  or  political  violence. 

I  have  never  yet  been  able  to  make  Mr.  Lincoln  understand,  or  can  I  make  any 
man  who  is  determined  to  support  him,  right  or  wrong,  understand  how  it  is  that 
under  the  Dred  Scott  decision  the  people  of  a  Territory,  as  well  as  a  State,  can  have 
slavery  or  not,  just  as  they  please.  I  believe  that  I  can  explain  that  proposition  to 
all  Constitution-loving,  law-abiding  men  in  a  way  that  they  cannot  fail  to  understand 
it.  Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  his  opinion  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  said  that  slaves 
being  property,  the  owner  of  them  has  a  right  to  take  them  into  a  Territory  the 
same  as  he  would  any  other  property ;  in  other  words,  that  slave  property,  so  far  as 
the  right  to  enter  a  Territory  is  concerned,  stands  on  the  same  footing  with  other 
property.  Suppose  we  grant  that  proposition.  Then  any  man  has  a  right  to  go  to 
Kansas  and  take  his  property  with  him,  but  when  he  gets  there  he  must  rely  upon 
the  local  law  to  protect  his  property,  whatever  it  may  be.  In  order  to  illustrate  this, 
imagine  that  three  of  you  conclude  to  go  to  Kansas.  One  takes  $10,000  worth  of 
slaves,  another  $10,000  worth  of  liquors,  and  the  third  $10,000  worth  of  dry  goods. 
When  the  man  who  owns  the  dry  goods  arrives  out  there  and  commences  selling 
them,  he  finds  that  he  is  stopped  and  prohibited  from  selling  until  he  gets  a  license, 
which  will  destroy  all  the  profits  he  can  make  on  his  goods  to  pay  for.  When  the 
man  with  the  liquors  gets  there  and  tries  to  sell  he  finds  a  Maine  liquor  law  in  force 
which  prevents  him.  Now,  of  what  use  is  his  right  to  go  there  with  his  property 
unless  he  is  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  that  right  after  he  gets  there  ?  The  man 
who  goes  there  with  his  slaves  finds  that  there  is  no  law  to  protect  him  when  he 
arrives  there.  He  has  no  remedy  if  his  slaves  run  away  to  another  country :  there 
is  no  slave  code  or  police  regulations,  and  the  absence  of  them  excludes  his  slaves 
from  the  Territory  just  as  effectually  and  as  positively  as  a  Constitutional  prohibition 
could. 

Such  was  the  understanding  when  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  was  pending  in 
Congress.  Read  the  speech  of  Speaker  Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  in  1856,  on  the  Kansas  question,  and  you  will  find  that  he  takes  the 
ground  that  while  the  owner  of  a  slave  has  a  right  to  go  into  a  Territory,  and  carry  his 
slaves  with  him,  that  he  cannot  hold  them  one  day  or  hour  unless  there  is  a  slave 
code  to  protect  him.  He  tells  you  that  slavery  would  not  exist  a  day  in  South  Car- 
olina, or  any  other  State,  unless  there  was  a  friendly  people  and  friendly  legislation. 
Read  the  speeches  of  that  giant  in  intellect,  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  and 
you  will  find  them  to  the  same  effect.  Read  the  speeches  of  Sam  Smith,  of  Tennes- 
see, and  of  all  Southern  men,  and  you  will  find  that  they  all  understood  this  doctrine 
then  as  we  understand  it  now.  Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  be  made  to  understand  it,  how- 
ever. Down  at  Jonesboro,  he  went  on  to  argue  that  if  it  be  the  law  that  a  man  has 
a  right  to  take  his-  slaves  into  territory  of  the  United  States  under  the  Constitution, 
that  then  a  member  of  Congress  was  perjured  if  he  did  not  vote  for  a  slave  code.  I 
ask  him  whether  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  not  binding  upon  him  as  well 
as  on  me  ?  If  so,  and  he  holds  that  he  would  be  perjured  if  he  did  not  vote  for  a 
slave  code  under  it,  I  ask  him  whether,  if  elected  to  Congress,  he  will  so  vote  ?  I 
have  a  right  to  his  answer,  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  He  put  that  question  to  me 
down  in  Egypt,  and  did  it  with  an  air  of  triumph.  This  was  about  the  form  of  it:  "  In 
the  event  of  a  slaveholding  citizen  of  one  of  the  Territories  should  need  and  demand 
a  slave  code  to  protect  his  slaves,  will  you  vote  for  it?"  I  answered  him  that  a  fun- 
damental article  in  the  Democratic  creed,  as  put  forth  in  the  Nebraska  bill  and  the 
Cincinnati  platform,  was  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and 
Territories,  and  hence,  that  I  would  not  vote  in  Congress  for  any  code  of  laws,  either 


207 

for  or  against  slavery  in  any  Territory.  I  will  leave  the  people  perfectly  free  to  de- 
cide that  question  for  themselves. 

Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Washington  Union  both  think  this  a  monstrous  bad  doctrine. 
Neither  Mr.  Lincoln  nor  the  Washington  Union  like  my  Freeport  speech  on  that  sub- 
ject. The  Union,  in  a  late  number,  has  been  reading  me  out  of  the  Democratic 
party  because  I  hold  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  have  the 
right  to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  they  please.  It  has  devoted  three  and  a  half  col- 
umns to  prove  certain  propositions,  one  of  which  I  will  read.  It  says : 

"  We  propose  to  show  that  Judge  Douglas's  action  in  1850  and  1854  was  taken  with 
especial  reference  to  the  announcement  of  doctrine  and  programme  which  was  made 
at  Freeport.  The  declaration  at  Freeport  was,  that  '  in  his  opinion  the  people  can, 
by  lawful  means,  exclude  slavery  from  a  Territory  before  it  comes  in  as  a  State;'  and 
he  declared  that  his  competitor  had  '  heard  him  argue  the  Nebraska  bill  on  that  prin- 
ciple all  over  Illinois  in  1854, 1855  and  1856,  and  had  no  excuse  to  pretend  to  have 
any  doubt  upon  that  subject.'  " 

The  Washington  Union  there  charges  me  with  the  monstrous  crime  of  now  pro- 
claiming on  the  stump,  the  same  doctrine  that  I  carried  out  in  1850,  by  supporting 
Clay's  Compromise  measures.  The  Union  also  charges  that  I  am  now  proclaiming 
the  same  doctrine  that  I  did  in  1854  in  support  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill. 
It  is  shocked  that  I  should  now  stand  where  I  stood  in  1850,  when  I  was  supported 
by  Clay,  Webster,  Cass,  and  the  great  men  of  that  day,  and  where  I  stood  in  1854, 
and  in  1856,  when  Mr.  Buchanan  was  elected  President.  It  goes  on  to  prove  and 
succeeds  in  proving,  from  my  speeches  in  Congress  on  Clay's  Compromise  measures, 
that  I  held  the  same  doctrines  at  that  time  that  I  do  now,  and  then  proves  that  by 
the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  I  advanced  the  same  doctrine  that  I  now  advance. 
It  remarks : 

u  So  much  for  the  course  taken  by  Judge  Douglas  on  the  Compromises  of  1850. 
The  record  shows,  beyond  the  possibility  of  cavil  or  dispute,  that  he  expressly  inten- 
ded in  those  bills  to  give  the  Territorial  Legislatures  power  to  exclude  slavery.  How 
stands  his  record  in  the  memorable  session  of  1854,  with  reference  to  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  itself?  We  shall  not  overhaul  the  votes  that  were  given  on  that  notable 
measure.  Our  space  will  not  afford  it.  We  have  his  own  words,  however,  delivered 
in  his  speech  closing  the  great  debate  on  that  bill  on  the  night  of  March  3,  1854,  to 
show  that  he  meant  to  do  in  1854  precisely  what  he  had  meant  to  do  in  1858.  The 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  being  upon  its  passage,  he  said : " 

It  then  quotes  my  remarks  upon  the  passage  of  the  bill  as  follows : 

"  The  principle  which  we  propose  to  carry  into  effect  by  this  bill  is  this  :  That 
Congress  shall  neither  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State  nor  out  of  the 
same ;  but  the  people  shall  be  left  free  to  regulate  their  domestic  concerns  in  their 
own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  In  order  to  carry  this 
principle  into  practical  operation,  it  becomes  necessary  to  remove  whatever  legal  ob- 
stacles might  be  found  in  the  way  of  its  free  exercise.  It  is  only  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  out  this  great  fundamental  principle  of  self-government  that  the  bill  renders 
the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  inoperative  and  void. 

"  Now,  let  me  ask,  will  those  Senators  who  have  arraigned  me,  or  any  one  of  them, 
have  the  assurance  to  rise  in  his  place  and  declare  that  this  great  principle  was  never 
thought  of  or  advocated  as  applicable  to  territorial  bill?,  in  1850 ;  that,  from  that  ses- 
sion until  the  present,  nobody  ever  thought  of  incorporating  this  principle  in  all  new 
territorial  organizations,  etc.,  etc.  I  will  begin  with  the  Compromises  of  1850.  Any 
Senator  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  our  journals  will  find  that  on  the  25th 
of  March  of  that  year  I  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Territories  two  bills,  inclu- 
ding the  following  measures :  the  admission  of  California,  a  territorial  government 
for  Utah,  a  territorial  government  for  New  Mexico,  and  the  adjustment  of  the  Texas 
boundary.  These  bills  proposed  to  leave  the  people  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  free 
to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves,  in  the  precise  language  of  the  Nebraska 
bill  now  under  discussion.  A  few  weeks  afterward  the  committee  of  thirteen  took 


208 

those  bills  and  put  a  wafer  between  them  and  reported  them  back  to  the  Senate  aa 
one  bill,  with  some  slight  amendments.  One  of  these  amendments  ivas,  that  the  Terri- 
torial Legislatures  should  not  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  African  slavery.  I  objected 
to  this  provision,  upon  the  ground  that  it  subverted  the  great  principle  of  self-gov- 
ernment, upon  which  the  bill  had  been  originally  framed  by  the  Territorial  Committee. 
On  the  first  trial  the  Senate  refused  to  strike  it  out,  but  subsequently  did  so,  upon  full 
debate,  m  order  to  establish  that  principle  as  the  rule  of  action  in  territorial  organi- 
zations." 

The  Union  comments  thus  upon  my  speech  on  that  occesion. 

"  Thus  it  is  seen  that,  in  framing  the  Nebraska- Kansas  bill,  Judge  Donglas  framed 
it  in  the  terms  and  upon  the  model  of  those  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  and  that  in 
the  debate  he  took  pains  expressly  to  revive  the  recollection  of  the  voting  which  had 
taken  place  upon  amendments  affecting  the  powers  of  the  Territorial  Legislatures  over 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  bills  of  1850,  in  order  to  give  the  same  meaning,  force, 
and  effect  to  the  Nebraska-Kansas  bill  on  this  subject  as  had  been  given  to  those  of 
Utah  and  New  Mexico." 

The  Union  proves  the  following  propositions :  First,  that  I  sustained  Clay's  Com- 
promise measures  on  the  greund  that  they  established  the  principle  of  self-govern- 
ment in  the  Territories.  Secondly,  that  I  brought  in  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill 
founded  upon  the  same  principles  as  Clay's  Compromise  measures  of  1 850 ;  and 
thirdly,  that  my  Freeport  speech  is  in  exact  accordance  with  those  principles.  And 
what  do  you  think  is  the  imputation  that  the  Union  casts  upon  me  for  all  this  ?  It 
says  that  my  Freeport  speech  is  not  Democratic,  and  that  I  was  not  a  Democrat  in 
1854  or  in  1850!  Now  is  not  that  funny?  Think  that  the  author  of  the  Kansas 
and  Nebraska  bill  was  not  a  Democrat  when  he  introduced  it.  The  Union  says  I 
was  not  a  sonnd  Democrat  in  1850,  nor  in  1854,  nor  in  1856,  nor  am  I  in  1858,  be- 
cause I  have  always  taken  and  now  occupy  the  ground  that  the  people  of  a  Territory, 
like  those  of  a  State,  have  the  right  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall 
or  shall  not  exist  in  a  Territory.  I  wish  to  cite  for  the  benefit  of  the  Washington 
Union  and  the  followers  of  that  sheet,  one  authority  on  that  point,  and  I  hope  the 
authority  will  be  deemed  satisfactory  to  that  class  of  politicians.  I  will  read  from 
Mr.  Buchanan's  letter  accepting  the  nomination  of  the  Democratic  Convention,  for 
the  Presidency.  You  know  that  Mr.  Buchanan,  after  he  was  nominated,  declared 
to  the  Keystone  Club,  in  a  public  speech,  that  he  was  no  longer  James  Buchanan, 
but  the  embodiment  of  the  Democratic  platform.  In  his  letter  to  the  committee 
which  informed  him  of  his  nomination  accepting  it,  he  defined  the  meaning  of  the 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  and  the  Cincinnati  platform  in  these  words : 

"  The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  respecting  domestic  slavery,  derived  as  it  has 
been  from  the  orignal  and  pure  fountain  of  legitimate  political  power,  the  will  of  the 
majority,  promises  ere  long  to  allay  the  dangerous  excitement.  This  legislation  is 
founded  upon  principles  as  ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and  in  accordance  with 
them  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall 
decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits." 

Thus  you  see  that  James  Buchanan  accepted  the  nomination  at  Cincinnati,  on  the 
conditions  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  should  be  left  to  de- 
cide for  themselves  whether  slavery  should  or  should  not  exist  within  their  limits. 
I  sustained  James  Buchanan  for  the  Presidency  on  that  platform  as  adopted  at  Cin- 
cinnati, and  expounded  by  himself.  He  was  elected  President  on  that  platform,  and  now 
we  are  told  by  the  Washington  Union  that  no  man  is  a  true  Democrat  who  stands  on 
the  platform  on  which  Mr.  Buchanan  was  nominated,  and  which  he  has  explained 
and  expounded  himself.  We  are  told  that  a  man  is  not  a  Democrat  who  stands  by 
Clay,  Webster,  and  Cass,  and  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  the  Kansas 
and  Nebraska  bill  of  1854.  Whether  a  man  be  a  Democrat  or  not  on  that  platform, 
I  intend  to  stand  there  as  long  as  I  have  life.  I  intend  to  cling  firmly  to  that  great 
principle  which  declares  that  the  right  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  settle  the 
question  of  slavery,  and  every  other  domestic  question,  for  themselves.  I  hold  that 


209 

if  they  want  a  slave  State,  they  have  a  right  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  to  make  it  so,  and  if  they  want  a  free  State,  it  is  their  right  to  have  it 
But  the  Union,  in  advocating  the  claims  of  Lincoln  over  me  to  the  Senate,  lays  down 
two  unpardonable  heresies  which  it  says  I  advocate.  The  first,  is  the  right  of  the 
people  of  a  Territory,  the  same  as  a  State,  to  decide  for  themselves  the  question 
whether  slavery  shall  exist  within  their  limits,  in  the  language  of  Mr'.  Buchanan ; 
and  the  second  is,  that  a  Constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the  people  of  a  Territory 
for  its  adoption  or  rejection  before  their  admission  as  a  State  under  it.  It  so  happens 
that  Mr.  Buchanan  is  pledged  to  both  these  heresies,  for  supporting  which  the  Wash- 
ington Union  has  read  me  out  of  the  Democratic  church.  In  his  annual  message  he 
said  he  trusted  that  the  example  of  the  Minnesota  case  would  be  followed  in  all 
future  cases,  requiring  a  submission  of  the  Constitution ;  and  in  his  letter  of  accept- 
ance, he  said  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  the  same  as  a  State,  had  the  right  to 
decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  should  exist  within  their  limits.  Thus  you 
find  that  this  little  corrupt  gang  who  control  the  Union,  and  wish  to  elect  Lincoln  in 
preference  to  me — because,  as  they  say,  of  these  two  heresies  which  I  support — de- 
nounce President  Buchanan  when  they  denounce  me,  if  he  stands  now  by  the 
principles  upon  which  he  was  elected.  Will  they  pretend  that  he  does  not  now  stand 
by  the  principles  on  which  he  was  elected  ?  Do  they  hold  that  he  has  abandoned  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  the  Cincinnati  platform,  and  his  own  letter  accepting  his  nom- 
ination, all  of  which  declare  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  Territory,  the  same  as  a 
State,  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves  ?  I  will  not  believe  that  he  has 
betrayed  or  intends  to  betray  the  platform  which  elected  him  ;  but  if  he  does,  I  will 
not  follow  him.  I  will  stand  by  that  great  principle,  no  matter  who  may  desert  it.  I 
intend  to  stand  by  it  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  peace  between  the  North  and 
the  South,  the  free  and  the  slave  States.  If  each  State  will  only  agree  to  mind  its 
own  business,  and  let  its  neighbors  alone,  there  will  be  peace  forever  between  us. 
We  in  Illinois  tried  slavery  when  a  Territory,  and  found  it  was  not  good  for  us  in  this 
climate,  and  with  our  surroundings,  and  hence  we  abolished  it.  We  then  adopted  a 
free  State  Constitution,  as  we  had  a  right  to  do.  In  this  State  we  have  declared  that 
a  negro  shall  not  be  a  citizen,  and  we  have  also  declared  that  he  shall  not  be  a  slave. 
We  had  a  right  to  adopt  that  policy.  Missouri  has  just  as  good  a  right  to  adopt  the 
other  policy.  I  am  now  speaking  of  rights  under  the  Constitution,  and  not  of  moral 
or  religious  rights.  I  do  not  discuss  the  morals  of  the  people  of  Missouri,  but  let 
them  settle  that  matter  for  themselves.  I  hold  that  the  people  of  the  slaveholding 
States  are  civilized  men  as  well  as  ourselves ;  that  they  bear  consciences  as  well  as 
we,  and  that  they  are  accountable  to  God  and  their  posterity,  and  not  to  us.  It  is 
for  them  to  decide,  therefore,  the  moral  and  religious  right  of  the  slavery  question  for 
themselves  within  their  own  limits.  I  assert  that  they  had  as  much  right  under  the 
Constitution  to  adopt  the  system  of  policy  which  they  have  as  we  had  to  adopt  ours. 
So  it  is  with  every  other  State  in  this  Union.  Let  each  State  stand  firmly  by  that  great 
Constitutional  right,  let  each  State  mind  its  own  business  and  let  its  neighbors  alone, 
and  there  will  be  no  trouble  on  this  question.  If  we  will  stand  by  that  principle, 
then  Mr.  Lincoln  will  find  that  this  Republic  can  exist  forever  divided  into  free  and 
slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it  and  the  people  of  eac'h  State  have  decided. 
Stand  by  that  great  principle,  and  we  can  go  on  as  we  have  done,  increasing  in  wealth, 
in  population,  in  power,  and  in  all  the  elements  of  greatness,  until  we  shall  be  the 
admiration  and  and  terror  of  the  world.  We  can  go  on  and  enlarge  as  our  popula- 
tion increase,  require  more  room,  until  we  make  this  continent  one  ocean-bound 
republic.  Under  that  principle  the  United  States  can  perform  that  great  mission, 
that  destiny,  which  Providence  has  marked  out  for  us.  Under  that  principle  we  can 
receive  with  entire  safety  that  stream  of  intelligence  which  is  constantly  flowing  from 
the  Old  World  to  the  New,  filling  up  our  prairies,  clearing  our  wildernesses  and 
building  cities,  towns,  railroads  and  other  internal  improvements,  and  thus  make  this 
the  asylum  of  the  oppressed  of  the  whole  earth.  We  have  this  great  mission  toper- 
form,  and  it  can  only  be  performed  by  adhering  faithfully  to  that  principle  of  self- 


210 

government  on  which  our  institutions  were  all  established.  I  repeat  that  the  princS 
pie  is  the  right  of  each  State,  each  Territory,  to  decide  this  slavery  question  for  itself, 
to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  it  chooses,  and  it  does  not  become  Mr.  Lincoln,  or  any- 
body else,  to  tell  the  people  of  Kentucky  that  they  have  no  consciences,  that  they 
are  living  in  a  state  of  iniquity,  and  that  they  are  cherishing  an  institution  to  their 
bosoms  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God.  Better  for  him  to  adopt  the  doctrine  of 
"judge  not  lest  ye  shall  be  judged."  Let  him  perform  his  own  duty  at  home,  and 
he  will  have  a  better  fate  in  the  future.  I  think  there  are  objects  of  charity  enough 
in  the  free  States  to  excite  the  sympathies  and  open  the  pockets  of  all  the  benevo- 
lence we  have  amongst  us,  without  going  abroad  in  search  of  negroes,  of  whose  con- 
dition we  know  nothing.  We  have  enough  objects  of  charity  at  home,  and  it  is  our 
duty  to  take  care  of  our  own  poor,  and  our  own  suffering,  before  we  go  abroad  to  in- 
termeddle with  other  people's  business. 

My  friends,  I  am  told  that  my  time  is  within  two  minutes  of  expiring.  I  have 
omitted  many  topics  that  I  would  liked  to  have  discussed  before  you  at  length. 
There  were  many  points  touched  by  Mr.  Lincoln  that  I  have  not  been  able  to  take 
up  for  the  want  of  time.  I  have  hurried  over  each  subject  that  I  have  discussed  as 
rapidly  as  possible,  so  as  to  omit  but  few,  but  one  hour  and  a  half  is  not  time  suffi- 
cient for  a  man  to  discuss  at  length  one  half  of  the  great  questions  which  are  now 
dividing  the  public  mind. 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  return  to  you  my  grateful  acknowledgments  for  the  kind- 
ness and  the  courtesy  with  which  you  have  listened  to  me.  It  is  something  remark- 
able that  in  an  audience  as  vast  as  this,  composed  of  men  of  opposite  politics  and 
views,  with  their  passions  highly  excited,  there  should  be  so  much  courtesy,  kind- 
ness and  respect  exhibited  not  only  toward  one  another,  but  toward  the  speakers,  and 
I  feel  that  it  is  due  to  you  that  I  should  thus  express  my  gratitude  for  the  kindness 
with  wliich  you  have  treated  me. 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  REJOINDER. 

MY  FRIENDS  :  Since  Judge  Douglas  has  said  to  you  in  his  conclusion  that  he 
had  not  time  in  an  hour  and  a  half  to  answer  all  I  had  said  in  an  hour,  it  follows  of 
course  that  I  will  not  be  able  to  answer  in  half  an  hour  all  that  he  said  in  an  how 
and  a  half. 

I  wish  to  return  to  Judge  Douglas  my  profound  thanks  for  his  public  annunciation 
here  to-day,  to  be  put  on  record,  that  his  system  of  policy  in  regard  to  the  institution 
of  slavery  contemplates  that  it  shaU  last  forever.  We  are  getting  a  little  nearer  the 
true  issue  of  this  controversy,  and  I  am  profoundly  grateful  for  this  one  sentence. 
Judge  Douglas  asks  you,  "  Why  cannot  the  institution  of  slavery,  or  rather,  why 
cannot  the  nation,  part  slave  and  part  free,  continue  as  our  fathers  made  it  forever?" 
In  the  first  place.  I  insist  that  our  fathers  did  not  make  this  nation  half  slave  and 
half  free,  or  part  slave  and  part  free.  I  insist  that  they  found  the  institution  of 
slavery  existing  here.  They  did  not  make  it  so,  but  they  left  it  so  because  they 
knew  of  no  way  to  get  rid  of  it  at  that  time.  When  Judge  Douglas  undertakes  to 
say  that,  as  a  matter  of  choice,  the  fathers  of  the  Government  made  this  nation  part 
slave  and  part  free,  he  assumes  what  is  historically  a  falsehood.  More  than  that : 
when  the  fathers  of  the  Government  cut  off  the  source  of  slavery  by  the  abolition 
of  the  slave-trade,  and  adopted  a  system  of  restricting  it  from  the  new  Territories 
where  it  had  not  existed,  I  maintain  that  they  placed  it  where  they  understood,  and 
all  sensible  men  understood,  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction ;  and  when 
Judge  Douglas  asks  me  why  it  cannot  continue  as  our  fathers  made  it,  I  ask  him 
why  he  and  his  friends  could  not  let  it  remain  as  our  fathers  made  it? 

It  is  precisely  all  I  ask  of  him  in  relation  to  the  institution  of  slavery,  that  it  shall 
b«  placed  upon  the  basis  that  our  fathers  placed  it  upon.  Mr.  Brooks,  of  South 


211 

Carolina,  once  said,  and  truly  said,  that  when  this  Government  was  established,  no 
one  expected  the  institution  of  slavery  to  last  until  this  day ;  and  that  the  men  who 
formed  this  Government  were  wiser  and  better  than  the  men  of  these  days ;  but 
the  men  of  these  days  had  experience  which  the  fathers  had  not,  and  that  ex- 
perience had  taught  them  the  invention  of  the  cottori-gin,  and  this  had  made  the 
perpetuation  of  the  institution  of  slavery  a  necessity  in  this  country.  Judge  Doug- 
las could  not  let  it  stand  upon  the  basis  which  our  fathers  placed  it,  but  removed  it, 
and  put  it  upon  the  cotton-gin  basis.  It  is  a  question,  therefore,  for  him  and  his 
friends  to  answer — why  they  could  not  let  it  remain  where  the  fathers  of  the  Gov- 
ernment originally  placed  it. 

I  hope  nobody  has  understood  me  as  trying  to  sustain  the  doctrine  that  we  have  a 
right  to  quarrel  with  Kentucky,  or  Virginia,  or  any  of  the  slave  States,  about  the 
institution  of  slavery — thus  giving  the  Judge  an  opportunity  to  make  himself  elor 
quent  and  valiant  against  us  in  fighting  for  their  rights.  1  expressly  declared  in 
my  opening  speech,  that  I  had  neither  the  inclination  to  exercise,  nor  the  belief  in 
the  existence  of  the  right  to  interfere  with  the  States  of  Kentucky  or  Virginia  in 
doing  as  they  pleased  with  slavery  or  any  other  existing  institution.  Then  what  be- 
comes of  all  his  eloquence  in  behalf  of  the  rights  of  States,  which  are  assailed  by 
no  living  man  ? 

But  I  have  to  hurry  on,  for  I  have  but  a  half  hour.  The  Judge  has  informed  me, 
or  informed  this  audience,  that  the  Washington  Union  is  laboring  for  my  election  to 
the  United  States  Senate.  This  is  news  to  me — not  very  ungrateful  news  either. 
[Turning  to  Mr.  W.  H.  Carlin,  who  was  on  the  stand] — I  hope  that  Carlin  will  be 
elected  to  the  State  Senate  and  will  vote  for  me.  [Mr.  Carlin  shook  his  head.] 
Carlin  don't  fall  in,  I  perceive,  and  I  suppose  he  will  not  do  much  for  me,  but  I  am 
glad  of  all  the  support  I  can  get  any  where,  if  I  can  get  it  without  practicing  any 
deception  to  obtain  it.  In  respect  to  this  large  portion  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech, 
in  which  he  tries  to  show  that  in  the  controversy  between  himself  and  the  Adminis- 
tration party,  he  is  in  the  right,  I  do  not  feel  myself  at  all  competent  or  inclined  to 
answer  him.  I  say  to  him,  "  Give  it  to  them — give  it  to  them  just  all  you  can  " — 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  I  say  to  Carlin,  and  Jake  Davis,  and  to  this  man  Wogley 
up  here  in  Hancock,  "  Give  it  to  Douglas — -just  pour  it  into  him." 

Now,  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  I  wish  to  say  a  word  or 
two.  After  all,  the  Judge  will  not  say  whether,  if  a  decision  is  made,  holding  that 
the  people  of  the  States  cannot  exclude  slavery,  he  will  support  it  or  not.  He  ob- 
stinately refuses  to  say  what  he  will  do  in  that  case.  The  Judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  as  obstinately  refused  to  say  what  they  would  do  on  this  subject.  Before  this 
I  reminded  him  that  at  Galesburgh  he  said  the  Judges  had  expressly  declared  the 
contrary,  and  you  remember  that  in  my  opening  speech  I  told  him  1  had  the  book 
containing  that  decision  here,  and  I  would  thank  him  to  lay  his  finger  cm  the  place 
where  any  such  thing  was  said.  He  has  occupied  his  hour  and  a  half,  and  he  has 
not  ventured  to  try  to  sustain  his  assertion.  He  never  will.  But  he  is  desirous  of 
knowing  how  we  are  going  to  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Judge  Douglas 
oii^ht  to  know  how.  Did  not  he  and  his  politcal  friends  find  a  way  to  reverse  the 
decision  of  that  same  court  in  favor  the  Constitutionality  of  the  National  Bank  ? 
Didn't  they  find  a  way  to  do  it  so  effectually  that  they  have  reversed  it  as  com- 
pletely as  any  decision  ever  was  reversed,  so  far  as  its  practical  operation  is  concerned  ? 
And  let  me  ask  you,  didn't  Judge  Douglas  find  a  way  to  reverse  the  decision  of 
our  Supreme  Court,  when  it  decided  that  Carlin's  father  —  old  Governor  Carlin 
— had  not  the  Constitutional  power  to  remove  a  Secretary  of  State  ?  Did  he  not 
appeal  to  the  "  MOBS,"  as  he  calls  them  ?  Did  he  not  make  speeches  in  the  lobby  to 
show  how  villainous  that  decision  was,  and  how  it  ought  to  be  overthrown  ?  Did  he 
not  succeed,  too,  in  getting  an  act  passed  by  the  Legislature  to  have  it  overthrown  ? 
And  didn't  he  himself  sit  down  on  that  bench  as  one  of  the  five  added  judges,  who 
were  to  overslaugh  the  four  old  ones — getting  his  name  of  "  Judge  "  in  that  way  and 
QO  other?  If  there  is  a  villainy  in  u^ing  disrespect  or  making  opposition  to  Supremo 


Court  decisions,  I  commend  it  to  Judge  Douglas's  earnest  consideration.  I  know  of 
no  man  in  the  State  of  Illinois  who  ought  to  know  so  well  about  how  much  villainy 
it  takes  to  opppose  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  our  honorable  friend,  Stephen 
A.  Douglas. 

Judge  Douglas  also  makes  the  declaration  that  I  eay  the  Democrats  are  bound  by 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  while  the  Republicans  are  not.  In  the  sense  in  whicli  he 
argues,  I  never  said  it ;  but  I  will  tell  you  what  I  have  said  and  what  I  do  not  hes- 
itate to  repeat  to-day.  I  have  said  that,  as  the  Democrats  believe  that  decision  to 
be  correct,  and  that  the  extension  of  slavery  is  affirmed  in  the  National  Constitution, 
they  are  bound  to  support  it  as  such ;  and  I  will  tell  you  here  that  General  Jackson 
once  said  each  man  was  bound  to  support  the  Constitution  "  as  he  understood  it." 
Now,  Judge  Douglas  understands  the  Constitution  according  to  the  Dred  Scott  de- 
cision, and  he  is  bound  to  support  it  as  he  understands  it.  I  understand  it  another 
way,  and  therefore  I  am  bound  to  support  it  in  the  way  in  which  I  understand  it. 
And  as  Judge  Douglas  believes  that  decision  to  be  correct,  I  will  remake  that  argu- 
ment if  I  have  time  to  do  so.  Let  me  talk  to  some  gentleman  down  there  among 
you  who  looks  me  in  the  face.  We  will  say  you  are  a  member  of  the  Territorial 
Legislature,  and  like  Judge  Douglas,  you  believe  that  the  right  to  take  and  hold 
slaves  there  is  a  Constitutional  right.  The  first  thing  you  do,  is  to  swear 
you  will  support  the  Constitution  and  all  rights  guarantied  therein ;  that  you 
will,  whenever  your  neighbor  needs  your  legislation  to  support  his  Constitutional 
rights,  not  withhold  that  legislation.  If  you  withhold  that  necessary  legislation 
for  the  support  of  the  Constitution  and  Constitutional  rights,  do  you  not  commit  per- 
jury ?  I  ask  every  sensible  man,  if  that  is  not  so  ?  That  is  undoubtedly  just  so, 
say  what  you  please.  Now,  that  is  precisely  what  Judge  Douglas  says,  that  this  is 
a  Constitutional  right.  Does  the  Judge  mean  to  say  that  the  Territorial  Legislature 
in  legislating  may,  by  withholding  necessary  laws,  or  by  passing  unfriendly  laws, 
nullify  that  Constitutional  right  ?  Does  he  mean  to  say  that  ?  Does  he  mean  to 
ignore  the  proposition  so  long  and  well  established  in  law,  that  what  you  cannot  do 
directly,  you  cannot  do  indirectly  ?  Does  he  mean  that  ?  The  truth  about  the  mat- 
ter is  this :  Judge  Douglas  has  sung  paeans  to  his  "  Popular  Sovereignty  "  doctrine 
until  his  Supreme  Court,  co-operating  with  him,  has  squatted  his  Squatter  Sover- 
eignty out.  But  he  will  keep  up  this  species  of  humbuggery  about  Squatter  Sover- 
eignty. He  has  at  last  invented  this  sort  of  do-nothing  Sovereignty — that  the 
people  may  exclude  slavery  by  a  sort  of  "  Sovereignty  "  that  is  exercised  by  doing 
nothing  at  all.  Is  not  that  running  his  Popular  Sovereignty  down  awfully?  Has  it 
not  got  down  as  thin  as  the  homoeopathic  soup  that  was  made  by  boiling  the  shadow 
of  a  pigeon  that  had  starved  to  death  ?  But  at  last,  when  it  is  brought  to  the  test 
of  close  reasoning,  there  is  not  even  that  thin  decoction  of  it  left.  It  is  a  presump- 
tion impossible  in  the  domain  of  thought.  It  is  precisely  no  other  than  the  putting 
of  that  most  unphilosophical  proposition,  that  two  bodies  can  occupy  the  same  space 
at  the  same  time.  The  Dred  Scott  decision  covers  the  whole  ground,  and  while  it 
occupies  it,  there  is  no  room  even  for  the  shadow  of  a  starved  pigeon  to  occupy  the 
same  ground. 

Judge  Douglas,  in  reply  to  what  I  have  said  about  having  upon  a  previous  occa- 
sion made  the  speech  at  Ottawa  as  the  one  he  took  an  extract  from,  at  Charleston^ 
says  it  only  shows  that  I  practiced  the  deception  twice.  Now,  my  friends,  are  any 
of  you  obtuse  enough  to  swallow  that?  Judge  Douglas  had  said  I  had  made  a 
speech  at  Charleston  that  I  would  not  make  up  north,  and  I  turned  around  and  an- 
swered him  by  showing  I  had  made  that  same  speech  up  north — had  made  it  at  Ot- 
tawa— made  it  in  his  hearing — made  it  in  the  Abolition  District — in  Lovejoy's  Dis- 
trict— in  the  personal  presence  of  Lovejoy  himself — in  the  same  atmosphere  exactly 
in  which  I  had  made  my  Chicago  speech,  of  whicli  he  complains  so  much. 

Now,  in  relation  to  my  not  having  said  any  thing  about  the  quotation  from  the  Chi- 
cago speech  :  He  thinks  that  is  a  terrible  subject  for  me  to  handle.  Why,  gentle- 
men, I  can  show  you  that  the  substance  of  the  Chicago  speech  I  delivered  two  years 


213 

ago  in  "  Egypt,"  a&  he  calls  it.  It  was  down  at  Springfield.  That  speech  is  here  in 
this  book,  and  I  could  turn  to  it  and  read  it  to  you  but  for  the  lack  of  time.  I  have 
not  now  the  time  to  read  it.  ["  Read  it,  read  it."]  No,  gentlemen,  I  am  obliged  to 
use  discretion  in  disposing  most  advantageously  of  my  brief  time.  The  Judge  has 
taken  great  exception  to  my  adopting  the  heretical  statement  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  that  "all  men  are  created  equal,"  and  he  has  a  great  deal  to  say  about 
negro  equality.  I  want  to  say  that  in  sometimes  alluding  to  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence, I  have  only  uttered  the  sentiments  that  Henry  Clay  used  to  hold.  Al- 
low me  to  occupy  your  time  a  moment  with  what  he  said.  Mr.  Clay  was  at  one 
time  called  upon  in  Indiana,  and  in  a  way  that  I  suppose  was  very  insulting,  to  liber- 
ate his  slaves,  and  he  made  a  written  reply  to  that  application,  and  one  portion  of  it 
is  in  these  words: 

"  What  is  the  foundation  of  this  appeal  to  me  in  Indiana,  to  liberate  the  slaves 
under  my  care  in  Kentucky  ?  It  is  a  general  declaration  in  the  act  announcing  to 
the  world  the  independence  of  the  thirteen  American  colonies,  that  '  men  are  created 
equal'  Now,  as  an  abstract  principle,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  that  declara- 
tion, and  it  is  desirable  in  the  original  construction  of  society,  and  in  organized  socie- 
ties, to  keep  it  in  view  as  a  great  fundamental  principle." 

When  I  sometimes,  in  relation  to  the  organization  of  new  societies  in  new  countries, 
where  the  soil  is  clean  and  clear,  insisted  that  we  should  keep  that  principle  in  view, 
Judge  Douglas  will  have  it  that  I  want  a  negro  wife.  He  never  can  be  brought  to  under- 
stand that  there  is  any  middle  ground  on  this  subject.  I  have  lived  until  my  fiftieth 
year,  and  have  never  had  a  negro  woman  either  for  a  slave  or  a  wife,  and  I  think  1 
can  live  fifty  centuries,  for  that  matter,  without  having  had  one  for  either.  I  main- 
tain that  you  may  take  Judge  Douglas's  quotations  from  my  Chicago  speech,  and 
from  my  Charleston  speech,  and  the  Galesburgh  speech, — in  his  speech  of  to-day, 
and  compare  them  over,  and  I  am  willing  to  trust  them  with  you  upon  his  proposi- 
tion that  they  show  rascality  or  double-dealing.  I  deny  that  they  do. 

The  Judge  does  not  seem  at  all  disposed  to  have  peace,  but  I  find  he  is  disposed  to 
have  a  personal  warfare  with  me.  He  says  that  my  oath  would  not  be  taken  against 
the  bare  word  of  Charles  H.  Lanphier  or  Thomas  L.  Harris.  Well,  that  is  alto- 
gether a  matter  of  opinion.  It  is  certainly  not  for  me  to  vaunt  my  word  against 
oaths  of  these  gentlemen,  but  I  will  tell  Judge  Douglas  again  the  facts  upon  which  I 
u  dared "  to  say  they  proved  a  forgery.  I  pointed  out  at  Galesburgh  that  the  publi- 
cation of  these  resolutions  in  the  Illinois  State  Register  could  not  have  been  the  re- 
sult of  accident,  as  the  proceedings  of  that  meeting  bore  unmistakable  evidence  of 
being  done  by  a  man  who  knew  it  was  a  forgery  ;  that  it  was  a  publication  partly 
taken  from  the  real  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  and  partly  from  the  proceedings 
of  a  Convention  at  another  place ;  which  showed  that  he  had  the  real  proceedings 
before  him,  and  taking  one  part  of  the  resolutions,  he  threw  out  another  part  and 
substituted  false  and  fraudulent  ones  in  their  stead.  I  pointed  that  out  to  him,  and 
also  that  his  friend  Lanphier,  who  was  editor  of  the  Register  at  that  time  and  now  is, 
mu»t  have  known  how  it  was  done.  Now  whether  he  did  it  or  got  some  friend  to  do 
it  for  him,  I  could  not  tell,  but  he  certainly  knew  all  about  it.  I  pointed  out  to 
Judge  Douglas  that  in  his  Freeport  speech  he  had  promised  to  investigate  that  mattei. 
Does  he  now  say  he  did  not  make  that  promise  ?  I  have  a  right  to  ask  why  he  did 
not  keep  it  ?  I  call  upon  him  to  tell  here  to-day  why  he  did  not  keep  that  promise  ? 
That  fraud  has  been  traced  up  so  that  it  lies  between  him,  Harris  and  Lanphier 
There  is  little  room  for  escape  for  Lanphier.  Lanphier  is  doing  the  Judge  good  ser- 
vice, and  Douglas  desires  his  word  to  be  taken  for  the  truth.  He  desires  Lanphier 
to  be  taken  as  authority  in  what  he  states  in  his  newspaper.  He  desires  Harris  to 
be  taken  as  a  man  of  vast  credibility,  and  when  this  thing  lies  among  them,  they  will 
not  press  it  to  show  where  the  guilt  really  belongs.  Now,  as  he  has  said  that  he 
would  investigate  it,  and  implied  that  he  would  tell  us  the  result  of  his  investigation, 
I  demand  of  him  to  tell  why  he  did  not  investigate  it,  if  he  did  not ;  and  if  he  did, 
why  he  won't  tell  the  result.  I  call  upon  him  for  that. 


214 

This  is  the  third  time  that  Judge  Douglas  has  assumed  that  he  learned  about  these 
resolutions  by  Harris's  attempting  to  use  them  against  Norton  on  the  floor  of  Con- 
gress. I  tell  Judge  Douglas  the  public  records  of  the  country  show  that  he  himself 
attempted  it  upon  Trumbull  a  month  before  Harris  tried  them  on  Norton — that  Har- 
ris had  the  opportunity  of  learning  it  from  him,  rather  than  he  from  Harris.  I  now 
ask  his  attention  to  that  part  of  the  record  on  the  case.  My  friends,  I  am  not  dis- 
posed to  detain  you  longer  in  regard  to  that  matter. 

I  am  told  that  I  still  have  five  minutes  left,  There  is  another  matter  I  wish  to 
call  attention  to.  He  says,  when  he  discovered  there  was  a  mistake  in  that  case,  he 
came  forward  magnanimously,  without  my  calling  his  attention  to  it,  and  explained  ii. 
I  will  tell  you  how  he  became  so  magnanimous.  "When  the  newspapers  of  our  side 
had  discovered  and  published  it,  and  put  it  beyond  his  power  to  deny  it,  then  he  came 
forward  and  made  a  virtue  of  necessity  by  acknowledging  it.  Now  he  argues  that 
all  the  point  there  was  in  those  resolutions,  although  never  passed  at  Springfield,  is 
retained  by  their  being  passed  at  other  localities.  Is  that  true  ?  He  said  I  had  a 
hand  in  passing  them,  in  his  opening  speech — that  I  was  in  the  Convention  and 
helped  to  pass  them.  Do  the  resolutions  touch  me  at  all  ?  It  strikes  me  there  is 
some  difference  between  holding  a  man  responsible  for  an  act  which  he  has  not  done, 
and  holding  him  responsible  for  an  act  that  he  has  done.  You  will  judge  whether 
there  is  any  difference  in  the  "  spots."  And  he  has  taken  credit  for  great  magnan- 
imity in  coming  forward  and  acknowledging  what  is  proved  on  him  beyond  even  the 
capacity  of  Judge  Douglas  to  deny,  and  he  has  more  capacity  in  that  way  than  any 
oj-her  living  man. 

*  Then  he  wants  to  know  why  I  won't  withdraw  the  charge  in  regard  to  a  conspira- 
cy to  make  slavery  national,  as  he  has  withdrawn  the  one  he  made.  May  it  please 
his  worship,  I  will  withdraw  it  when  it  is  proven  false  on  me  as  that  was  proven  false 
on  him.  I  will  add  a  little  more  than  that.  I  will  withdraw  it  whenever  a  reasona- 
ble man  shall  be  brought  to  believe  that  the  charge  is  not  true.  I  have  asked  Judge 
Douglas's  attention  to  certain  matters  of  fact  tending  to  prove  the  charge  of  a  con- 
spiracy to  nationalize  slavery,  and  he  says  he  convinces  me  that  this  is  all  untrue  be- 
cause Buchanan  was  not  in  the  country  at  that  time,  and  because  the  Dred  Scott  case 
had  not  then  got  into  the  Supreme  Court ;  and  he  says  that  I  say  the  Democratic 
owners  of  Dred  Scott  got  up  the  case.  I  never  did  say  that.  I  defy  Judge  Douglas 
to  show  that  I  ever  said  so,  for  I  never  uttered  it.  [One  of  Mr.  Douglas's  reporters 
gesticulated  affirmatively  at  Mr.  Lincoln.]  I  don't  care  if  your  hireling  does  say  I 
did,  I  tell  you  myself  that  I  never  said  the  "  Democratic  "  owners  of  Dred  Scott  got 
up  the  cas-e.  I  have  never  pretended  to  know  whether  Dred  Scott's  owners  were 
Democrats  or  Abolitionists,  or  Freesoilers  or  Border  Ruffians.  I  have  said  that 
there  is  evidence  about  the  case  tending  to  show  that  it  was  a  made  up  case,  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  that  decision.  I  have  said  that  that  evidence  was  very  strong  in 
the  fact  that  when  Dred  Scott  was  declared  to  be  a  slave,  the  owner  of  him  made 
him  free,  showing  that  he  had  had  the  case  tried  and  the  question  settled  for  such  use 
as  could  be  made  of  that  decision  ;  he  cared  nothing  about  the  property  thus  declared 
to  be  his  by  that  decision.  But  my  time  is  out  and  I  can  say  no  more. 


215 


THE  LAST  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  ALTON, 

October  15,  1858. 


SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  SPEECH. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  It  is  now  nearly  four  months  since  the  canvass  be- 
tween Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself  commenced.  On  the  16th  of  June  the  Republican 
Convention  assembled  at  Springfield  and  nominated  Mr.  Lincoln  as  their  candidate 
for  the  United  States  Senate,  and  he,  on  that  occasion,  delivered  a  speech  in  which  he 
laid  down  what  he  understood  to  be  the  Republican  creed  and  the  platform  on  which 
he  proposed  to  stand  during  the  contest.  The  principal  points  in  that  speech  of  Mr. 
Lincoln's  were :  First,  that  this  Government  could  not  endure  permanently  divided 
into  free  and  slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it;  that  they  must  all  become  free  or 
all  become  slave ;  all  become  one  thing  or  all  become  the  other,  otherwise  this  Union 
could  not  continue  to  exist.  I  give  you  his  opinions  almost  in  the  identical  language 
he  used.  His  second  proposition  was  a  crusade  against  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  because  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision ;  urging  as  an  especial  reason  for 
his  opposition  to  that  decision  that  it  deprived  the  negroes  of  the  rights  and  benefits 
of  that  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  guaranties  to  the  citi- 
zens of  each  State  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the 
several  States.  On  the  10th  of  July  I  returned  home,  and  delivered  a  speech  to  the 
people  of  Chicago,  in  which  I  announced  it  to  be  my  purpose  to  appeal  to  the  people 
of  Illinois  to  sustain  the  course  I  had  pursued  in  Congress.  In  that  speech  I  joined 
issue  with  Mr.  Lincoln  on  the  points  which  he  had  presented.  Thus  there  was  an 
issue  clear  and  distinct  made  up  between  us  on  these  two  propositions  laid  down  in  the 
speech  of  Mr.  Lincoln  at  Springfield,  and  controverted  by  me  in  my  reply  to  him  at 
Chicago.  On  the  next  day,  the  llth  of  July,  Mr.  Lincoln  replied  to  me  at  Chicago, 
explaining  at  some  length,  and  reaffirming  the  positions  which  he  had  taken  in  his 
Springfield  speech.  In  that  Chicago  speech  he  even  went  further  than  he  had  be- 
fore, and  uttered  sentiments  in  regard  to  the  negro  being  on  an  equality  with  the 
white  man.  He  adopted  in  support  of  this  position  the  argument  which  Lovejoy  and 
Codding,  and  other  Abolition  lecturers  had  made  familiar  in  the  northern  and  central 
portions  of  the  State,  to  wit :  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  having  declared 
all  men  free  and  equal,  by  Divine  law,  also  that  negro  equality  was  an  inalienable 
right,  of  which  they  could  not  be  deprived.  He  insisted,  in  that  speech,  that  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  included  the  negro  in  the  clause,  asserting  that  all  men 
were  created  equal,  and  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  if  one  man  was  allowed  to  take 
the  position,  that  it  did  not  include  the  negro,  others  might  take  the  position  that  it 
did  not  include  other  men.  He  said  that  all  these  distinctions  between  this  man  and 
that  man,  this  race  and  the  other  race,  must  be  discarded,  and  we  must  all  stand  by 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  declaring  that  all  men  were  created  equal. 

The  issue  thus  being  made  up  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself  on  three  points, 
we  went  before  the  people  of  the  State.  During  the  following  seven  weeks,  between 
the  Chicago  speeches  and  our  first  meeting  at  Ottawa,  he  and  I  addressed  large  as- 
semblages of  the  people  in  many  of  the  central  counties.  In  my  speeches  I  con- 
fined myself  closely  to  those  three  positions  which  he  had  taken,  controverting  his 
proposition  that  this  Union  could  not  exist  as  our  fathers  made  it,  divided  into  free 
and  slave  States,  controverting  his  proposition  of  a  crusade  against  the  Supreme 
Court  because  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  controverting  his  proposition  that  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  included  and  meant  the  negroes  as  well  as  the  white 
men,  when  it  declared  all  men  to  be  created  equal.  I  supposed  at  that  time  that 


216 

these  propositions  constituted  a  distinct  issue  between  us,  and  tLat  the  opposite  posi- 
tions we  had  taken  upon  them  we  would  be  willing  to  be  held  to  in  every  part  of  the 
State,  I  never  intended  to  waver  one  hair's  breadth  from  that  issue  either  in  the 
north  or  the  south,  or  wherever  I  should  address  the  people  of  Illinois.  I  hold  that 
when  the  time  arrives  that  I  cannot  proclaim  my  political  creed  in  the  same  terms 
not  only  in  the  northern  but  the  southern  part  of  Illinois,  not  only  in  the  Northern 
but  the  Southern  States,  and  wherever  the  American  flag  waves  over  American 
soil,  that  then  there  must  be  something  wrong  in  that  creed.  So  long  as  we 
live  under  a  common  Constitution,  so  long  as  we  live  in  a  confederacy  of  sover- 
eign and  equal  States,  joined  together  as  one  for  certain  purposes,  that  any 
political  creed  is  radically  wrong  which  cannot  be  proclaimed  in  every  State,  and 
every  section  of  that  Union,  alike.  I  took  up  Mr.  Lincoln's  three  propositions  in  my 
several  speeches,  analyzed  them,  and  pointed  out  what  I  believed  to  be  the  radical  errors 
contained  in  them.  First,  in  regard  to  his  doctrine  that  this  Government  was  in  vio- 
lation of  the  law  of  God,  which  says  that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand, 
I  repudiated  it  as  a  slander  upon  the  immortal  framers  of  our  Constitution.  I  then 
said,  I  have  often  repeated,  and  now  again  assert,  that  in  my  opinion  our  Government 
can  endure  forever,  divided  into  free  and  slave  States  as  our  fathers  made  it, — each 
State  having  the  right  to  prohibit,  abolish  or  sustain  slavery,  just  as  it  pleases.  This 
Government  was  made  upon  the  great  basis  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  the 
right  of  each  State  to  regulate  its  own  domestic  institutions  to  suit  itself,  and  that 
right  was  conferred  with  the  understanding  and  expectation  that  inasmuch  as  each  local- 
ity had  separate  interests,  each  locality  must  have  different  and  distinct  local  and  do- 
mestic institutions,  corresponding  to  its  wants  and  interests.  Our  fathers  knew  when 
they  made  the  Government,  that  the  laws  and  institutions  which  were  well  adapted 
to  the  green  mountains  of  Vermont,  were  unsuited  to  the  rice  plantations  of  South 
Carolina.  They  knew  then,  as  well  as  we  know  now,  that  the  laws  and  institutions 
which  would  be  well  adapted  to  the  beautiful  prairies  of  Illinois  would  not  be  suited 
to  the  mining  regions  of  California.  They  knew  that  in  a  Republic  as  broad  as  this, 
having  such  a  variety  of  soil,  climate  and  interest,  there  must  necessarily  be  a  cor- 
responding variety  of  local  laws — the  policy  and  institutions  of  each  State  adapted 
to  its  condition  and  wants.  For  this  reason  this  Union  was  established  on  the  right 
of  each  State  to  do  as  it  pleased  on  the  question  of  slavery,  and  every  other  question ; 
and  the  various  States  were  not  allowed  to  complain  of,  much  less  interfere  with  the 
policy,  of  their  neighbors. 

Suppose  the  doctrine  advocated  by  Mr.  Lincoln  arid  the  Abolitionists  of  this  day 
had  prevailed  when  the  Constitution  was  made,  what  would  have  been  the  result  ? 
Imagine  for  a  moment  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  a  member  of  the  Convention  that 
framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  that  when  its  members  were  about 
to  sign  that  wonderful  document,  he  had  arisen  in  that  Convention  as  he  did  at  Spring- 
field this  summer,  and  addressing  himself  to  the  President,  had  said,  "A  house  divid- 
ed against  itself  cannot  stand ;  this  Government,  divided  into  free  and  slave  States, 
cannot  endure,  they  must  all  be  free  or  all  be  slave,  they  must  all  be  one  thing  or  all 
the  other,  otherwise,  it  is  a  violation  of  the  law  of  God,  and  cannot  continue  to  exist ; " 
— suppose  Mr.  Lincoln  had  convinced  that  body  of  sages  that  that  doctrine  was 
sound,  what  would  have  been  the  result  ?  Remember  that  the  Union  was  then  com- 
posed of  thirteen  States,  twelve  of  which  were  slaveholding  and  one  free.  Do  you 
think  that  the  one  free  State  would  have  outvoted  the  twelve  slaveholding  States,  and 
thus  have  secured  the  abolition  of  slavery  ?  On  the  other  hand,  would  not  the  twelve 
slaveholding  States  have  outvoted  the  one  free  State,  and  thus  have  fastened  slavery, 
by  a  Constitutional  provision,  on  every  foot  of  the  American  Republic  forever? 
You  see  that  if  this  Abolition  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln  had  prevailed  when  the  Gov- 
ernment was  made,  it  would  have  established  slavery  as  a  permanent  institution,  in 
all  the  States,  whether  they  wanted  it  or  not,  and  the  question  for  us  to  determine  in 
Illinois  now  as  one  of  the  free  States  is,  whether  or  not  we  are  willing,  having  be- 
come the  majority  section,  to  enforce  a  doctrine  on  the  minority,  which  we  would 


217 

have  resisted  with  our  heart's  blood  had  it  been  attempted  on  us  when  we  were  in  a 
minority.  How  has  the  South  lost  her  power  as  the  majority  section  in  this  Union, 
arid  how  have  the  free  States  gained  it,  except  under  the  operation  of  that  principle 
which  declares  the  right  of  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  form  and 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  It  was  under*  that  principle 
that  slavery  was  abolished  in  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York. 
New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania ;  it  was  under  that  principle  that  one  half  of  the 
slaveholding  States  became  free ;  it  was  under  that  principle  that  the  number  of  free 
States  increased  until  from  being  one  out  of  twelve  States,  we  have  grown  to  be  the 
majority  of  States  of  the  whole  Union,  with  the  power  to  control  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  Senate,  and  the  power,  consequently,  to  elect  a  President  by 
Northern  votes  without  the  aid  of  a  Southern  State.  Having  obtained  this  power 
under  the  operation  of  that  great  principle,  are  you  now  prepared  to  abandon  the 
principle  and  declare  that  merely  because  we  have  the  power  you  will  wage  a  war 
against  the  Southern  States  and  their  institutions  until  you  force  them  to  abolish  sla- 
very every  where. 

After  having  pressed  these  arguments  home  on  Mr.  Lincoln  for  seven  weeks,  pub- 
lishing a  number  of  my  speeches,  we  met  at  Ottawa  in  joint  discussion,  and  he  then 
began  to  crawfish  a  little,  and  let  himself  down.  I  there  propounded  certain  ques- 
tions to  him.  Amongst  others,  I  asked  him  whether  he  would  vote  for  the  admission 
of  any  more  slave  States  in  the  event  the  people  wanted  them.  He  would  not  an- 
swer. I  then  told  him  that  if  he  did  not  answer  the  question  there  I  would  renew  it 
at  Freeport,  and  would  then  trot  him  down  into  Egypt  and  again  put  it  to  him. 
Well,  at  Freeport,  knowing  that  the  next  joint  discussion  took  place  in  Egypt,  and 
being  in  dread  of  it,  he  did  answer  my  question  in  regard  to  no  more  slave  States  in 
a  mode  which  he  hoped  would  be  satisfactory  to  me,  and  accomplish  the  object  he 
had  in  view.  I  will  show  you  what  his  answer  was.  After  saying  that  he  was  not 
pledged  to  the  Republican  doctrine  of  "  no  more  slave  States,"  he  declared : 

"  I  state  to  you  freely,  frankly,  that  I  should  be  exceedingly  sorry  to  ever  be  put 
in  the  position  of  having  to  pass  upon  that  question.  I  should  be  exceedingly  glad 
to  know  that  there  never  would  be  another  slave  State  admitted  into  this  Union." 

Here  permit  me  to  remark,  that  I  do  not  think  the  people  will  ever  force  him  into 
a  position  against  his  will.  He  went  on  to  say : 

"  But  I  must  add  in  regard  to  this,  that  if  slavery  shall  be  kept  out  of  the  Terri- 
tory during  the  territorial  existence  of  any  one  given  Territory,  and  then  the  people 
should,  having  a  fair  chance  and  a  clear  field  when  they  come  to  adopt  a  Constitu- 
tion, if  they  should  do  the  extraordinary  thing  of  adopting  a  slave  Constitution,  un- 
influenced by  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alterna- 
tive, if  we  own  the  country,  but  we  must  admit  it  into  the  Union." 

That  answer  Mr.  Lincoln  supposed  would  satisfy  the  old  line  "Whigs,  composed  of 
Kentuckians  and  Virginians,  down  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State.  Now,  what 
does  it  amount  to  ?  I  desired  to  know  whether  he  would  vote  to  allow  Kansas  to 
come  into  the  Union  with  slavery  or  not,  as  her  people  desired.  He  would  not  anr 
swer ;  but  in  a  roundabout  way  said  that  if  slavery  should  be  kept  out  of  a  Territo- 
ry during  the  whole  of  its  territorial  existence,  and  then  the  people,  when  they  adopt- 
ed a  State  Constitution,  asked  admission  as  a  slave  State,  he  supposed  he  would  have 
to  let  the  State  come  in.  The  case  I  put  to  him  was  an  entirely  different  one.  I 
desired  to  know  whether  he  would  vote  to  admit  a  State  if  Congress  had  not  prohib- 
ited slavery  in  it  during  its  territorial  existence,  as  Congress  never  pretended  to  do 
under  Clay's  Compromise  measures  of  1850.  He  would  not  answer,  and  I  have  not 
yet  been  able  to  get  an  answer  from  him.  I  have  asked  him  whether  he  would  vote 
to  admit  Nebraska  if  her  people  asked  to  come  in  as  a  State  with  a  Constitution  re- 
cognizing slavery,  and  he  refused  to  answer.  I  have  put  the  question  to  him  with 
reference  to  New  Mexico,  and  he  has  not  uttered  a  word  in  answer.  I  have  enu- 
merated the  Territories,  one  after  another,  putting  the  same  question  to  him  with  ref- 
erence to  each,  and  he  has  not  said,  and  will  not  say,  whether,  if  elected  to  Congress, 


218 

he  will  vote  to  admit  any  Territory  now  in  existence  with  such  a  Constitution  as  her 
people  may  adopt.  He  invents  a  case  which  does  riot  exist,  and  cannot  exist  under 
this  Government,  and  answers  it ;  but  he  will  not  answer  the  question  I  put  to  him 
in  connection  with  any  of  the  Territories  now  in  existence.  The  contract  we  entered 
into  with  Texas  when  she  entered  the  Union  obliges  us  to  allow  four  States  to  be 
formed  out  of  the  old  State,  and  admitted  with  or  without  slavery  as  the  respective 
inhabitants  of  each  may  determine.  I  have  asked  Mr.  Lincoln  three  times  in  our 
joint  discussions  whether  he  would  vote  to  redeem  that  pledge,  and  he  has  never  yet 
answered.  He  is  as  silent  as  the  grave  on  the  subject  He  would  rather  answer  a* 
to  a  state  of  the  wise  which  will  never  arise  than  commit  himself  by  telling  what  he 
would  do  in  a  case  which  would  come  up  for  his  action  soon  after  his  election  to  Con- 
gress. Why  can  he  not  say  whether  he  is  willing  to  allow  the  people  of  each  State 
to  have  slavery  or  not  as  they  please,  and  to  come  into  the  Union  when  they  have, 
the  requisite  population  as  a  slave  or  a  free  State  as  they  decide  ?  I  have  no  trouble 
in  answering  the  question.  I  have  said  every  where,  and  now  repeat  it  to  you,  that 
if  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  slave  State  they  have  a  right,  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  to  form  such  a  State,  and  I  will  let  them  come  into  the  Union 
with  slavery  or  without,  as  they  determine.  If  the  people  of  any  other  Territory 
desire  slavery,  let  them  have  it.  If  they  do  not  want  it,  let  them  prohibit  it.  It  is 
their  business,  not  mine.  It  is  none  of  our  business  in  Illinois  whether  Kansas  is  a 
free  State  or  a  slave  State.  It  is  none  of  your  business  in  Missouri  whether  Kansas 
shall  adopt  slavery  or  reject  it.  It  is  the  business  of  her  people  and  none  of  yours. 
The  people  of  Kansas  have  as  much  right  to  decide  that  question  for  themselves  as 
you  have  in  Missouri  to  decide  it  for  yourselves,  or  we  in  Illinois  to  decide  it  for  our- 
selves. 

And  here  I  may  repeat  what  I  have  said  in  every  speech  I  have  made  in  Illinois, 
that  I  fought  the  Lecompton  Constitution  to  its  death,  not  because  of  the  slavery 
clause  in  it,  but  because  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas.  I  said 
then  in  Congress,  and  I  say  now,  that  if  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  slave  State, 
they  have  a  right  to  have  it.  If  they  wanted  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  they  had 
a  right  to  have  it.  I  was  opposed  to  that  Constitution  because  I  did  not  believe  that 
it  was  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people,  but  on  the  contrary,  the  act  of  a  small,  pitiful 
minority  acting  in  the  name  of  the  majority.  When  at  last  it  was  determined  to 
send  that  Constitution  back  to  the  people,  and  accordingly,  in  August  last,  the  ques- 
tion of  admission  under  it  was  submitted  to  a  popular  vote,  the  citizens  rejected  it 
by  nearly  ten  to  one,  thus  showing  conclusively,  that  I  was  right  when  I  said  that 
the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and 
did  not  embody  their  will. 

I  hold  that  there  is  no  power  on  earth,  under  our  system  of  Government,  which 
has  the  right  to  force  a  Constitution  upon  an  unwilling  people.  Suppose  that  there 
had  been  a  majority  of  ten  to  one  in  favor  of  slavery  in  Kansas,  and  suppose  there 
had  been  an  Abolition  President,  and  an  Abolition  Administration,  and  by  some 
means  the  Abolitionists  succeeded  in  forcing  an  Abolition  Constitution  on  those  slave- 
holding  people,  would  the  people  of  the  South  have  submitted  to  that  act  for  one  in- 
stant ?  Well,  if  you  of  the  South  would  not  have  submitted  to  it  a  day,  how  can  you, 
as  fair,  honorable  and  honest  men,  insist  on  putting  a  slave  Constitution  on  a  people 
who  desire  a  free  State  ?  Your  safety  and  ours  depend  upon  both  of  us  acting  in 
good  faith,  and  living  up  to  that  great  principle  which  asserts  the  right  of  every  peo- 
ple to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  to  suit  themselves,  subject  only 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Most  of  the  men  who  denounced  my  course  on  the  Lecompton  question,  objected 
to  it  not  because  I  was  not  right,  but  because  they  thought  it  expedient  at  that  time, 
for  the  sake  of  keeping  the  party  together,  to  do  wrong.  I  never  knew  the  Demo- 
cratic party  to  violate  any  one  of  its  principles  out  of  policy  or  expediency,  that  it 
did  not  pay  the  debt  with  sorrow.  There  is  no  safety  or  success  for  our  party  unless 
we  always^do  right,  and  trust  the  consequences  to  God  and  the  people.  I  chose  not 


219 

to  depart  from  principle  for  the  sake  of  expediency  in  the  Lecompton  question,  and 
I  never  intend  to  do  it  on  that  or  any  other  question. 

But  I  am  told  that  I  would  have  been  all  right  if  I  had  only  voted  for  the  Eng- 
lish bill  after  Lecompton  was  killed.  You  know  a  general  pardon  was  granted  to 
all  political  offenders  on  the  Lecompton  question,  provided  they  would  only  vote 
for  the  English  bill.  I  did  not  accept  the  benefits  of  that  pardon,  for  the  reason  that 
I  had  been  right  in  the  course  I  had  pursued,  and  hence  did  not  require  any  forgive- 
ness. Let  us  see  how  the  result  has  been  worked  out.  English  brought  in  his  bill 
referring  the  Lecompton  Constitution  back  to  the  people,  with  the  provision  that  if 
it  was  rejected  Kansas  should  be  kept  out  of  the  Union  until  she  had  the  full  ratio 
of  population  required  for  a  member  of  Congress,  thus  in  effect  declaring  that  if  the 
people  of  Kansas  would  only  consent  to  come  into  the  Union  under  the  Lecompton 
Constitution,  and  have  a  slave  State  when  they  did  not  want  it,  they  should  be 
admitted  with  a  population  of  35,000,  but  that  if  they  were  so  obstinate  as  to  in- 
sist upon  having  just  such  a  Constitution  as  they  thought  best,  and  to  desire  admis- 
sion as  a  free  State,  then  they  should  be  kept  out  until  they  had  93,420  inhabi- 
tants. I  then  said,  and  I  now  repeat  to  you,  that  whenever  Kansas  has  people 
enough  for  a  slave  State  she  has  people  enough  for  a  free  State.  I  was  and  am  will- 
ing to  adopt  the  rule  that  no  State  shall  ever  come  into  the  Union  until  she  has  the 
full  ratio  of  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  provided  that  rule  is  made  uni- 
form. I  made  that  proposition  in  the  Seriate  last  winter,  but  a  majority  of  the  Sena- 
tors would  not  agree  to  it ;  and  I  then  said  to  them  if  you  will  not  adopt  the  general 
rule  I  will  not  consent  to  make  an  exception  of  Kansas. 

I  hold  that  it  is  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  this  Government  to 
throw  the  weight  of  federal  power  into  the  scale,  either  in  favor  of  the  free  or  the 
slave  States.  Equality  among  all  the  States  of  this  Union  is  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple in  our  political  system.  We  have  no  more  right  to  throw  the  weight  of  the 
Federal  Government  into  the  scale  in  favor  of  the  slaveholding  than  the  free  States, 
and  last  of  all  should  our  friends  in  the  South  consent  for  a  moment  that  Congress 
should  withhold  its  powers  either  way  when  they  know  that  there  is  a  majority 
against  them  in  both  Houses  of  Congress. 

Fellow-citizens,  how  have  the  supporters  of  the  English  bill  stood  up  to  their 
pledges  not  to  admit  Kansas  until  she  obtained  a  population  of  93,420  in  the  event 
she  rejected  the  Lecompton  Constitution  ?  How  ?  The  newspapers  inform  us  that 
English  himself,  whilst  conducting  his  canvass  for  re-election,  and  in  order  to  secure 
it,  pledged  himself  to  his  constituents  that  if  returned  he  would  disregard  his  own 
bill  and  vote  to  admit  Kansas  into  the  Union  with  such  population  as  she  might  have 
when  she  made  application.  We  are  informed  that  every  Democratic  candidate  for 
Congress  in  all  the  States  where  elections  have  recently  been  held,  was  pledged 
against  the  English  bill,  with  perhaps  one  or  two  exceptions.  Now,  if  I  had  only 
done  as  these  anti-Lecompton  men  who  voted  for  the  English  bill  in  Congress, 
pledging  themselves  to  refuse  to  admit  Kansas  if  she  refused  to  become  a  slave  State 
until  she  had  a  population  of  93,420,  and  then  returned  to  their  people,  forfeited 
their  pledge,  and  made  a  new  pledge  to  admit  Kansas  at  any  time  she  applied,  with- 
out regard  to  population,  I  would  have  had  no  trouble.  You  saw  the  whole  power 
and  patronage  of  the  Federal  Government  wielded  in  Indiana,  Ohio,  and  Pennsyl- 
vania to  re-elect  anti-Lecompton  men  to  Congress  who  voted  against  Lecompton, 
then  voted  for  the  English  bill,  and  then  denounced  the  English  bill,  and  pledged 
themselves  to  their  people  to  disregard  it.  My  sin  consists  in  not  having  given  a 
pledge,  and  then  in  not  having  afterward  forfeited  it.  For  that  reason,  in  this  State, 
every  postmaster,  erery  route  agent,  every  collector  of  the  ports,  and  every  federal 
office-holder,  forfeits  his  head  the  moment  he  expresses  a  preference  for  the  Demo- 
cratic candidates  against  Lincoln  and  his  Abolition  associates.  A  Democratic  Ad- 
mini-stration  which  we  helped  to  bring  into  power,  deems  it  consistent  with  its  fidelity 
to  principle  and  its  regard  to  duty,  to  wield  its  power  in  this  State  in  behalf  of  the 
Republican  Abolition  candidates  in  every  county  and  every  Congressional  District 


220 

against  the  Democratic  party.  All  I  have  to  say  in  reference  to  the  matter  is,  that 
if  that  Administration  have  not  regard  enough  for  principle,  if  they  are  not  sufficient- 
ly attached  to  the  creed  of  the  Democratic  party  to  bury  forever  their  personal  hos- 
tilities in  order  to  succeed  in  carrying  out  our  glorious  principles,  I  have.  I  have 
no  personal  difficulty  with  Mr.  Buchanan  or  his  cabinet.  He  chose  to  make  certain 
recommendations  to  Congress,  as  he  had  a  right  to  do,  on  the  Lecompton  question.  I 
could  not  vote-  in  favor  of  them.  I  had  as  much  right  to  judge  for  myself  how  I 
should  vote  as  he  had  how  he  should  recommend.  He  undertook  to  say  to  me,  if 
you  do  not  vote  as  I  tell  you,  I  will  take  off  the  heads  of  your  friends.  I  replied  to 
him,  "  You  did  not  elect  me,  I  represent  Illinois  and  I  am  accountable  to  Illinois,  as 
my  constituency,  and  to  God,  but  not  to  the  President  or  to  any  other  power  on 
earth." 

And  now  this  warfare  is  made  on  me  because  I  would  not  surrender  my  connec- 
tions of  duty,  because  I  would  not  abandon  my  constituency,  and  receive  the  orders 
of  the  executive  authorities  how  I  should  vote  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 
I  hold  that  an  attempt  to  control  the  Senate  on  the  part  of  the  Executive  is  subver- 
sive of  the  principles  of  our  Constitution.  The  Executive  department  is  independent 
of  the  Senate,  and  the  Seriate  is  independent  of  the  President.  In  matters  of  leg- 
islation the  President  has  a  veto  on  the  action  of  the  Senate,  and  in  appointments 
and  treaties  the  Senate  has  a  veto  on  the  President.  He  has  no  more  right  to  tell 
me  how  I  shall  vote  on  his  appointments  than  I  have  to  tell  him  whether  he  shall 
veto  or  approve  a  bill  that  the  Senate  has  passed.  Whenever  you  recognize  the 
right  of  the  Executive  to  say  to  a  Senator,  "  Do  this,  or  I  will  take  off  the  heads  of 
your  friends,"  you  convert  this  Government  from  a  republic  into  a  despotism.  When- 
ever you  recognize  the  right  of  a  President  to  say  to  a  member  of  Congress,  "  Vote 
as  I  tell  you,  or  I  will  bring  a  power  to  bear  against  you  at  home  which  will  crush 
you,"  you  destroy  the  independence  of  the  representative,  and  convert  him  into  a 
tool  of  Executive  power.  I  resisted  this  invasion  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  a 
Senator,  and  I  intend  to  resist  it  as  long  as  I  have  a  voice  to  speak,  or  a  vote  to  give. 
Yet,  Mr.  Buchanan  cannot  provoke  me  to  abandon  one  iota  of  Democratic  principles 
out  of  revenge  or  hostility  to  his  course.  I  stand  by  the  platform  of  the  Democratic 
party,  and  by  its  organization,  and  support  its  nominees.  If  there  are  any  who 
choose  to  bolt,  the  fact  only  shows  that  they  are  not  as  good  Democrats  as  I  am. 

My  friends,  there  never  was  a  time  when  it  was  as  important  for  the  Democratic 
party,  for  all  national  men,  to  rally  and  stand  together  as  it  is  to-day.  We  find  all 
sectional  men  giving  up  past  differences  and  continuing  the  one  question  of  slavery, 
and  when  we  find  sectional  men  thus  uniting,  we  should  unite  to  resist  them  and  their 
treasonable  designs.  Such  was  the  case  in  1850,  when  Clay  left  the  quiet  and  peace 
of  his  home,  and  again  entered  upon  public  life  to  quell  agitation  and  restore  peace 
to  a  distracted  Union.  Then  we  Democrats,  with  Cass  at  our  head,  welcomed  Henry 
Clay,  whom  the  whole  nation  regarded  as  having  been  preserved  by  God  for  the 
times.  He  became  our  leader  in  that  great  fight,  and  we  rallied  around  him  the  same 
as  the  Whigs  rallied  around  old  Hickory  in  1832,  to  put  down  nullification  Thus 
you  see  that  whilst  Whigs  and  Democrats  fought  fearlessly  in  old  times  about  banks, 
the  tariff,  distribution,  the  specie  circular,  and  the  sub-treasury,  all  united  as  a  band 
of  brothers  when  the  peace,  harmony,  or  integrity  of  the  Union  was  imperiled.  It 
was  so  in  1850,  when  Abolitionism  had  even  so  far  divided  this  country,  North  and 
South,  as  to  endanger  the  peace  of  the  Union ;  Whigs  and  Democrats  united  in  es- 
tablishing the  Compromise  measures  of  that  year,  and  restoring  tranquillity  and  good 
feeling.  These  measures  passed  on  the  joint  action  of  the  two  parties.  They  rested 
on  the  great  principle  that  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  should  be  left 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  to  suit  themselves.  You 
Whigs  and  we  Democrats  justified  them  in  that  principle.  In  1854,  when  it  became 
necessary  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  I  brought  forward  the 
bill  on  the  same  principle.  In  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  you  find  it  declared  to  be 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or  Ter 


221 

ritory,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to 
form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  I  stand  on  that  same 
platform  in  1858  that  I  did  in  1850,  1854,  and  1856.  The  Washington  Union  pre- 
tending to  be  the  organ  of  the  Administration,  in  the  number  of  the  5th  of  this 
month,  devotes  three  columns  and  a  half  to  establish  these  propositions:'  First,  that 
Douglas,  in  his  Freeport  speech,  held  the  same  doctrine  that  he  did  in  his  Nebraska 
bill  in  1854;  second,  that  in  1854  Douglas  justified  the  Nebraska  bill  upon  the 
ground  that  it  was  based  upon  the  same  principle  as  Clay's  Compromise  measures  of 
185(!  The  Union  thus  proved  that  Douglas  was  the  same  in  1858  that  he  was  in 
1856,  4  854,  and  1850,  and  consequently  argued  that  he  was  never  a  Democrat.  Ig 
it  not  funny  that  I  was  never  a  Democrat  ?  There  is  no  pretense  that  I  have  changed 
a  hair's  breadth.  The  Umon  proves  by  my  speeches  that  I  explained  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850  just  as  I  do  now,  and  that  I  explained  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
bill  in  1854  just  as  I  did  in  my  Freeport  speech,  and  yet  says  that  I  am  not  a  Dem- 
ocrat, and  cannot  be  trusted,  because  I  have  not  changed  during  the  whole  of  that  time. 
It  has  occured  to  me  that  in  1854  the  author  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  was 
considered  a  pretty  good  Democrat.  It  has  occurred  to  me  that  in  1856,  when  I 
was  exerting  every  nerve  and  every  energy  for  James  Buchanan,  standing  on  the 
same  platform  then  that  I  do  now,  that  I  was  a  pretty  good  Democrat.  They  now 
tell  me  that  I  am  not  a  Democrat,  because  I  assert  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  as 
well  as  those  of  a  State,  have  the  right  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  can 
or  cannot  exist  in  such  Territory.  Let  me  read  what  James  Buchanan  said  on  that 
point  when  he  accepted  the  Democratic  nomination  for  the  Presidency  in  1856.  In 
his  letter  of  acceptance,  he  used  the  following  language : 

"  The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  respecting  domestic  slavery,  derived  as  it  lias- 
been  from  the  original  and  pure  fountain  of  legitmate  political  power,  the  will  of  the 
majority,  promises  ere  long  to  allay  the  dangerous  excitement.  This  legislation  is 
founded  upon  principles  as  ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and  in  accordance  with 
them  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall 
decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits." 

Dr.  Hope  will  there  find  my  answer  to  the  question  he  propounded  to  me  before  I 
commenced  speaking.  Of  course  no  man  will  consider  it  an  answer,  who  is  outside 
of  the  Democratic  organization,  bolts  Democratic  nominations,  and  indirectly  aids  to 
put  Abolitionists  into  power  over  Democrats.  But  whether  Dr.  Hope  considers  it  an 
answer  or  not,  every  fair-minded  man  will  see  that  James  Buchanan  has  answered 
the  question,  and  has  asserted  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State, 
shall  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits. 
1  answer  specifically  if  you  want  a  further  answer,  and  say  that  while  under  the  de- 
cision of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  recorded  in  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Tancy, 
slaves  are  property  like  all  other  property,  and  can  be  carried  into  any  Territory  of 
the  United  States  the  same  as  any  other  description  of  property,  yet  when  you  get 
them  there  they  are  subject  to  the  local  law  of  the  Territory  just  like  all  other  prop- 
erty. You  will  find  in  a  recent  speech  delivered  by  that  able  and  eloquent  statesman, 
Hon.  Jefferson  Davis,  at  Bangor,  Maine,  that  he  took  the  same  view  of  this  subjc'Ct 
that  I  did  in  my  Freeport  speech.  He  there  said  :  • 

"  If  the  inhabitants  of  any  Territory  should  refuse  to  enact  such  laws  and  police 
regulations  as  would  give  security  to  their  property  or  to  his,  it  would  be  rendered 
more  or  less  valueless  in  proportion  to  the  difficulties  of  holding  it  without  such  pro- 
tection. In  the  case  of  property  in  the  labor  of  man,  or  what  is  usually  called  slave 
property,  the  insecurity  would  be  so  great  that  the  owner  could  not  ordinarily  retain 
it.  Therefore,  though  the  right  would  remain,  the  remedy  being  withheld,  it  would 
follow  that  the  owner  would  be  practically  debarred,  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  from  taking  slave  property  into  a  Territory  where  the  sense  of  the  inhabitants 
was  opposed  to  its  introduction.  So  much  for  the  oft-repeated  fallacy  of  forcing 
slavery  upon  any  community." 

You  will  also  find  that  the  distinguished  Speaker  of  the  present  House  of  Rep- 
15 


222 

resentative?,  Hon.  Jas.  L.  Or,  construed  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  in  this  same 
way  in  1856,  and  also  that  great  intellect  of  the  South,  Alex.  H.  Stephens,  put  the 
same  construction  upon  it  in  Congress  that  I  did  in  my  Freeport  speech.  The  whole 
South  are  rallying  to  the  support  of  the  doctrine  that  if  the  people  of  a  Territory 
want'  slavery  they  have  a  right  to  have  it,  and  if  they  do  not  want  it  that  no  power 
on  earth  can  force  it  upon  them.  I  hold  that  there  is  no  principle  on  earth  more 
sacred  to  all  the  friends  of  freedom  than  that  which  says  /hat  no  institution,  no  law, 
no  constitution,  .should  be  forced  on  an  unwilling  people  contrary  to  their  wishes  ;  and 
I  assert  that  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  contains  that  principle.  It  is  the  greai 
principle  contained  in  that  bill.  It  is  the  principle  on  which  James  Buchanan  wna 
made  President.  Without  that  principle  he  never  would  have  been  made  President 
of  the  United  States.  I  will  never  violate  or  abandon  that  doctrine  if  I  have  to  stand 
alone.  I  have  resisted  the  blandishments  and  threats  of  power  on  the  one  side,  and 
seduction  on  the  other,  and  have  stood  immovably  for  that  principle,  fighting  for  it 
when  assailed  by  Northern  mobs,  or  threatened  by  Southern  hostility.  I  have  de- 
fended it  against  the  North  and  the  South,  and  I  will  defend  it  against  whoever 
assails  it,  and  I  will  follow  it  wherever  its  logical  conclusions  lead  me.  I  say  to  you 
that  there  is  but  one  hope,  one  safety  for  this  country,  and  that  is  to  stand  immovably 
by  that  principle  which  declares  the  right  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  decide 
these  questions  for  themselves.  This  Government  was  founded  on  that  principle,  and 
must  be  administered  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  was  founded. 

But  the  Abolition  party  really  think  that  under  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
the  negro  is  equal  to  the  white  man,  and  that  negro  equality  is  an  inalienable  right 
conferred  by  the  Almighty,  and  hence  that  all  human  laws  in  violation  of  it  are  null 
and  void.  With  such  men  it  is  no  use  for  me  to  argue.  I  hold  that  the  signers  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  had  no  reference  to  negroes  at  all  when  they  de- 
clared all  men  to  be  created  equal.  They  did  not  mean  negro,  nor  the  savage  Indians, 
nor  the  Fejee  Islanders,  nor  any  other  barbarous  race.  They  were  speaking  of 
white  men.  They  alluded  to  men  of  European  birth  and  European  descent — to  white 
men,  and  to  none  others,  when  they  declared  that  doctrine.  I  hold  that  this  Govern- 
ment was  established  on  the  white  basis.  It  was  established  by  white  men  for  the 
benefit  of  white  men  and  their  posterity  forever,  and  should  be  administered  by  white 
men,  and  none  others.  But  it  does  not  follow,  by  any  means,  that  merely  because 
the  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  and  merely  because  he  is  not  our  equal,  that,  therefore,  he 
should  be  a  slave.  On  the  contrary,  it  does  follow  that  we  ought  to  extend  to  the 
negro  race,  and  to  all  other  dependent  races  all  the  rights,  all  the  privileges,  and  al? 
the  immunities  which  they  can  exercise  consistently  with  the  safety  of  society.  Hu 
manity  requires  that  we  should  give  them  all  these  privileges  ;  Christianity  command-/ 
that  we  should  extend  those  privileges  to  them.  The  question  then  arises  what  art' 
those  privileges,  and  what  is  the  nature  and  extent  of  them.  My  answer  is  that  that 
is  a  question  which  each  State  must  answer  for  itself.  We  in  Illinois  have  decided 
it  for  ourselves.  We  tried  slavery,  kept  it  up  for  twelve  years,  and  finding  lluit  it 
was  not  profitable,  we  abolished  it  for  that  reason,  and  became  a  free  State.  We 
adopted  in  its  stead  the  policy  that  a  negro  in  this  State  shall  not  be  a  slave  and  t  hall 
not  be  a  citizen.  -We  have  a  right  to  adopt  that  policy.  For  my  part  I  think  it  i.s 
a  wise  and  sound  policy  for  us.  You  in  Missouri  must  judge  for  yourselves  whether 
it  is  a  wise  policy  for  you.  If  you  choose  to  follow  our  example,  very  good  ;  if  you 
reject  it,  still  well,  it  is  your  business,  not  ours.  So  with  Kentucky.  Let  Kentucky 
adopt  a  policy  to  suit  herself.  If  we  do  not  like  it  we  will  keep  away  from  it,  and 
if  she  does  not  like  ours  let  her  stay  at  home,  mind  her  own  business  and  let  us  alone. 
If  the  people  of  all  the  States  will  act  on  that  great  principle,  and  each  State  mind 
its  own  business,  attend  to  its  own  affairs,  take  care  of  its  own  negroes  and  not  meddle 
with  its  neighbors,  then  there  will  be  peace  between  the  North  and  the  South,  the 
East  and  the  West,  throughout  the  whole  Union.  Why  can  we  not  thus  have  peace  ? 
Why  should  we  thus  allow  a  sectional  party  to  agitate  this  country,  to  array  the 
North  against  the  South,  and  convert  us  into  enemies  instead  of  friends,  merely  that 


223 

a  few  ambitious  men  may  ride  into  power  on  a  sectional  hobby  ?  How  long  is  it 
since  these  ambitious  Northern  men  wished  for  a  sectional  organization  ?  Did  any 
one  of  them  dream  of  a  sectional  party  as  long  as  the  North  was  the  weaker  section 
and  the  South  the  stronger  ?  Then  all  were  opposed  to  sectional  parties ;  but  the 
moment  the  North  obtained  the  majority  in  the  House  and  Senate  by  the  admission 
of  California,  and  could  elect  a  President  without  the  aid  of  Southern  votes,  that 
moment  ambitious  Northern  men  formed  a  scheme  to  excite  the  North  against  the 
South,  and  make  the  people  be  governed  in  their  votes  by  geographical  lines,  thinking 
ihat  the  North,  being  the  stronger  section,  would  outvote  the  South,  and  consequently 
they,  the  leaders,  would  ride  into  office  on  a  sectional  hobby.  I  am  told  that  my 
hour  is  out.  It  was  very  short 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  REPLY 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  I  have  been  somewhat,  in  my  own  mind,  compli- 
mented by  a  large  portion  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech — I  mean  that  portion  which  he 
devotes  to  the  controversy  between  himself  and  the  present  Administration.  This  is 
the  seventh  time  Judge  Douglas  and  myself  have  met  in  these  joint  discussions,  and 
lie  has  been  gradually  improving  in  regard  to  his  war  with  the  Administraton.  At 
Quincy,  day  before  yesterday,  he  was  a  little  more  severe  upon  the  Administration 
than  I  had  heard  him  upon  any  occasion,  and  1  took  pains  to  compliment  him  for  it. 
I  then  told  him  to  "  Give  it  to  them  with  all  the  power  he  had ; "  and  as  some  of 
them  were  present,  I  told  them  I  would  be  very  much  obliged  if  they  would  give  it  to 
him  in  about  the  same  way.  I  take  it  he  has  now  vastly  improved  upon  the  attack 
he  made  then  upon  the  Administration.  I  flatter  myself  he  has  really  taken  my  advice 
on  this  subject.  All  I  can  say  now  is  to  re-commend  to  him  and  to  them  what  I  then 
commended — to  prosecute  the  war  against  one  another  in  the  most  vigorous  manner. 
I  say  to  them  again — "  Go  it,  husband ! — Go  it,  bear !  " 

There  is  one  other  thing  I  will  mention  before  I  leave  this  branch  of  the  discus- 
sion— although  I  do  not  consider  it  much  of  my  business,  any  way.  I  refer  to  that 
part  of  the  Judge's  remarks  where  he  undertakes  to  involve  Mr.  Buchanan  in  an 
inconsistency.  He  reads  something  from  Mr.  Buchanan,  from  which  he  undertakes 
to  involve  him  in  an  inconsistency;  and  he  gets  something  of  a  cheer  for  having  done 
HO.  I  would  only  remind  the  Judge  that  while  he  is  very  valiantly  fighting  for  the 
Nebraska  bill  and  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  it  has  been  but  a  little 
while  since  he  was  the  valiant  advocate  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  I  want  to 
know  if  Buchanan  has  not  as  much  right  to  be  inconsistent  as  Douglas  has  ?  Has 
Douglas  the  exclusive  right,  in  this  country,  of  being  on  all  sides  of  all  questions  ? 
Is  nobody  allowed  that  high  privilege  but  himself?  Is  he  to  have  an  entire  monopoly 
on  that  subject  ? 

So  far  as  Judge  Douglas  addressed  his  speech  to  me,  or  so  far  as  it  was  about  me, 
it  is  my  business  to  pay  some  attention  to  it.  I  have  heard  the  Judge  state  two  or 
three  times  what  he  has  stated  to-day — that  in  a  speech  which  I  made  at  Springfield, 
Illinois,  I  had  in  a  very  especial  manner  complained  that  the  Supreme  Court  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case  had  decided  that  a  negro  could  never  be  a  citizen  of  the  Unite/l 
States.  I  have  omitted  by  some  accident  heretofore  to  analyze  this  statement,  and 
it  is  required  of  me  to  notice  it  now.  In  point  of  fact  it  is  untrue.  I  never  have 
complained  especially  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  held  that  a  negro  could 
not  be  a  citizen,  and  the  Judge  is  always  wrong  when  he  says  I  ever  did  so  complain 
of  it.  I  have  the  speech  here,  and  I  will  thank  him  or  any  of  his  friends  to  show 
where  I  said  that  a  negro  should  be  a  citizen,  and  complained  especially  of  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  declared  he  could  not  be  one.  I  have  done  no  such 
thing,  and  Judge  Douglas  so  persistently  insisting  that  I  have  done  so,  lias  strongly 
impressed  me  with  the  belief  of  a  predetermination  on  his  part  to  misrepresent  me. 


224 

He  could  not  get  his  foundation  for  insisting  that  I  was  in  favor  of  this  negro  equal- 
ity any  where  else  as  well  lie  could  by  assuming  that  untrue  proposition.  Let  me 
tell  this  audience  what  is  true  in  regard  to  that  matter;  and  the  means  by  which  they 
may  correct  me  if  I  do  not  tell  them  truly  is  by  a  recurrence  to  the  speech  itself 
I  spoke  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  in  my  Springfield  speech,  and  I  was  then  endeav- 
oring to  prove  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  was  a  portion  of  a  system  or  scheme  to 
make  slavery  national  in  this  country.  I  pointed  out  what  things  had  been  decided 
by  the  court.  I  mentioned  as  a  fact  that  they  had  decided  that  a  negro  could  not  be 
a  citizen — that  they  had  done  so,  as  I  supposed,  to  deprive  the  negro,  under  all 
circumstances,  of  the  remotest  possibility  of  ever  becoming  a  citizen  and  claiming 
the  rights  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  under  a  certain  clause  of  the  Constitution. 
I  stated  that,  without  making  any  complaint  of  it  at  all.  I  then  went  on  and  stated 
the  other  points  decided  in  the  case,  namely :  that  the  bringing  of  a  negro  into  the. 
State  of  Illinois  and  holding  him  in  slavery  for  two  years  here  was  a  matter  in 
regard  to  which  they  would  riot  decide  whether  it  Avould  make  him  free  or  not ;  that 
they  decided  the  further  point  that  taking  him  into  a  United  States  Territory  where? 
slavery  was  prohibited  by  act  of  Congress,  did  not  make  him  free,  because  that  act 
of  Congress,  as  they  held,  was  unconstitutional.  I  mentioned  these  three  things  a* 
making  up  the  points  decided  in  that  case.  I  mentioned  them  in  a  lump  taken  in 
connection  with  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  and  the  amendment  of  Chase, 
offered  at  the  time,  declaratory  of  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  Territories  to  exclude 
slavery,  which  was  voted  down  by  the  friends  of  the  bill.  I  mentioned  all  these 
things  together,  as  evidence  tending  to  prove  a  combination  and  conspiracy  to  make 
the  institution  of  slavery  national.  In  that  connection  and  in  that  way  I  mentioned 
the  decision  on  the  point  that  a  negro  could  not  be  a  citizen,  and  in  no  other  con- 
nection. 

Out  of  this,  Judge  Douglas  builds  up  his  beautiful  fabrication — of  my  purpose  to 
introduce  a  perfect,  social,  arid  political  equality  between  the  white  and  black  races. 
His  assertion  that  I  made  an  u  especial  objection  "  (that  is  his  exact  language)  to 
the  decision  on  this  account,  is  untrue  in  point  of  fact. 

Now,  while  I  am  upon  this  subject,  and  as  Henry  Clay  has  been  alluded  to,  I  de- 
sire to  place  myself,  in  connection  with  Mr.  Clay,  as  nearly  right  before  this  people 
as  may  be.  I  am  quite  aware  what  the  Judge's  object  is  here  by  all  these  allusion?. 
He  knows  that  we  are  before  an  audience,  having  strong  sympathies  southward  by 
relationship,  place  of  birth,  and  so  on.  He  desires  to  place  me  in  an  extremely 
Abolition  attitude.  Ho  read  upon  a  former  occasion,  and  alludes  without  reading  to- 
day, to  a  portion  of  a  speech  which  I  delivered  in  Chicago.  In  his  quotations  from  that 
speech,  as  he  has  made  them  upon  former  occasions,  the  extracts  were  taken,  in  such  a 
way  as,  I  suppose,  brings  them  within  the  definition  of  what  is  called  garbling — taking 
portions  of  a  speech  which,  when  taken  by  themselves,  do  not  present  the  entire 
sense  of  the  speaker  as  expressed  at  the  time.  I  propose,  therefore,  out  of  that  same 
speech,  to  show  how  one  portion  of  it  which  he  skipped  over  (taking  an  extract  be- 
fore and  an  extract  after)  will  give  a  different  idea,  and  the  true  idea  I  intended  to 
convey.  It  will  take  me  some  little  time  to  read  it,  but  I  believe  I  will  occupy  the 
time  that  way. 

You  have  heard  him  frequently  allude  to  my  controversy  with  him  in  regard  to 
the  Declaration  of  Independence.  I  confess  that  I  have  had  a  struggle  with  Judge 
Douglas  on  that  matter,  and  I  will  try  briefly  to  place  myself  right  in  regard  to  it 
on  this  occasion.  I  said — and  it  is  between  the  extracts  Judge  Douglas  has  taken 
from  this  speech,  and  put  in  his  published  speeches  : 

"  It  may  be  argued  that  there  are  certain  conditions  that  make  necessities  and  im- 
pose them  upon  us,  and  to  the  extent  that  a  necessity  is  imposed  upon  a  man  he  must 
submit  to  it.  I  think  that  was  the  condition  in  which  we  found  ourselves  when  we  es- 
tablished this  Government.  We  had  slaves  among  us,  we  could  not  get  our  Constitution 
unless  we  permitted  them  to  remain  in  slavery,  we  could  not  secure  the  good  we  did  se- 
cure if  we  grasped  for  more ;  and  having  by  necessity  submitted  to  that  much,  it  does 


225 

not  destroy  the  principle  that  is  the  charter  of  our  liberties.  Let  the  charter  re- 
main as  our  standard." 

Now  I  have  upon  all  occasions  declared  as  strongly  as  Judge  Douglas  against  the 
disposition  to  interfere  with  the  existing  institution  of  slavery.  You  hear  me  read 
it  from  the  same  speech  from  which  he  takes  garbled  extracts  for  the  purpose  of 
proving  upon  me  a  disposition  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery,  and  estab- 
lish a  perfect  social  and  political  equality  between  negroes  and  white  people. 

Allow  me  while  upon  this  subject  briefly  to  present  one  other  extract  from  a  speech 
of  mine,  more  than  a  year  ago,  at  Springfield,  in  discussing  this  very  same  ques- 
tion, soon  after  Judge  Douglas  took  his  ground  that  negroes  were  not  included  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence : 

"  I  think  the  authors  of  that  notable  instrument  intended  to  include  all  men,  but 
they  did  not  mean  to  declare  all  men  equal  in  all  respects.  They  did  riot  mean  to 
say  all  men  were  equal  in  color,  size,  intellect,  moral  development  or  social  capacity. 
They  defined  with  tolerable  distinctness  in  what  they  did  consider  all  men  created 
equal — equal  in  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pur- 
suit of  happiness.  This  they  said,  and  this  they  meant.  They  did  not  mean  to 
assert  the  obvious  untruth,  that  all  were  then  actually  enjoying  that  equality,  or  yet, 
that  they  were  about  to  confer  it  immediately  upon  them.  In  fact  they  had  no  power 
to  confer  such  a  boon.  They  meant  simply  to  declare  the  right,  so  that  the  enforce- 
ment of  it  might  follow  as  fast  as  circumstances  should  permit. 

"  They  meant  to  set  up  a  standard  maxim  for  free  society  which  should  be  familiar 
to  all :  constantly  looked  to,  constantly  labored  for,  and  even,  though  never  perfectly 
attained,  constantly  approximated,  and  thereby  constantly  spreading  and  deepening 
its  influence  and  augmenting  the  happiness  and  value  of  life  to  all  people,  of  all 
colors,  every  where." 

There  again  are  the  sentiments  I  have  expressed  in  regard  to  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  upon  a  former  occasion — sentiments  which  have  been  put  in  print  and 
read  wherever  anybody  cared  to  know  what  so  humble  an  individual  as  myself  chose 
to  say  in  regard  to  it. 

At  Galesburgh  the  other  day,  I  said  in  answer  to  Judge  Douglas,  that  three 
years  ago  there  never  had  been  a  man,  so  far  as  I  knew  or  believed,  in  the  whole 
world,  who  had  said  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  did  not  include  negroes  in 
the  term  "all  men."  I  reassert  it  to-day.  I  assert  that  Judge  Douglas  and  all  his 
friends  may  search  the  whole  records  of  the  country,  and  it  will  be  a  matter  of  great 
astonishment  to  me  if  they  shall  be  able  to  find  that  one  human  being  three  years 
ago  had  ever  uttered  the  astounding  sentiment  that  the  term  "all  men"  in  the  De- 
claration did  not  include  the  negro.  Do  not  let  me  be  misunderstood.  I  know  that 
more  then  three  years  ago  there  were  men  who,  finding  this  assertion  constantly  in 
the  way  of  their  schemes  to  bring  about  the  ascendancy  and  perpetuation  of  slavery, 
denied  the  truth  of  it.  I  know  that  Mr.  Calhoun  and  all  the  politicians  of  his  school 
denied  the  truth  of  the  Declaration.  I  know  that  it  ran  along  in  the  mouth  of  some 
Southern  men  for  a  period  of  years,  ending  at  last  in  that  shameful  though  rather 
forcible  declaration  of  Pettit  of  Indiana,  upon  the  floor  of  the  United  States  Senate, 
that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  in  that  respect  "  a  self-evident  lie,"  rather 
ihan  a  self-evident  truth.  But  I  say,  with  a  perfect  knowledge  of  all  this  hawking 
at  the  Declaration  without  directly  attacking  it,  that  three  years  ago  there  never  had 
lived  a  man  who  had  ventured  to  assail  it  in  the  sneaking  way  of  pretending  to  be- 
lieve it  and  then  asserting  it  did  not  include  the  negro.  I  believe  the  first  man  who 
ever  said  it  was  Chief  Justice  Taney  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  and  the  next  to  him 
was  our  friend,  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  And  now  it  has  become  the  catch-word  of  the 
entire  party.  I  would  like  to  call  upon  his  friends  every  where  to  consider  how 
they  have  come  in  so  short  a  time  to  view  this  matter  in  a  way  so  entirely  different 
from  their  former  belief?  to  ask  whether  they  are  not  being  borne  along  by  an  irre- 
bistible  current — whither,  they  know  not? 

In  answer  to  my  proposition  at   Galesburgh  last  week,  I  see  that  some  man  in 


226 

Chicago  has  got  up  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Chicago  Times,  to  show,  as  he  professes, 
that  somebody  had  said  so  before;  and  he  signs  himself  "An  Old  Line  Whig,"  if  I 
remember  correctly.  In  the  first  place  I  would  say  he  was  not  an  old  line  Whig. 
I  am  somewhat  acquainted  with  old  line  Whigs.  I  was  with  the  old  line  Whigs 
from  the  origin  to  the  end  of  that  party ;  I  became  pretty  well  acquainted  with  them, 
and  I  know  they  always  had  some  sense,  whatever  else  you  could  ascribe  to  them. 
I  know  there  nerer  was  one  who  had  not  more  sense  than  to  try  to  show  by  the 
evidence  he  produces  that  some  man  had,  prior  to  the  time  I  named,  said  that  negroes 
were  not  included  in  the  term  "  all  men  "  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  What 
is  the  evidence  he  produces  ?  I  will  bring  forward  his  evidence  and  let  you  see 
what  he  offers  by  way  of  showing  that  somebody  more  than  three  years  ago  had 
said  negroes  were  not  included  in  the  Declaration.  He  brings  forward  part  of  a 
speech  from  Henry  Clay — the  part  of  the  speech  of  Henry  Clay  which  I  used  to 
bring  forward  to  prove  precisely  the  contrary.  I  guess  we  are  surrounded  to  some 
extent  to-day  by  the  old  friends  of  Mr.  Clay,  and  they  will  be  glad  to  hear  any  thing 
from  that  authority.  While  he  was  in  Indiana  a  man  presented  a  petition  to  liberate 
his  negroes,  and  he  (Mr.  Clay)  made  a  speech  in  answer  to  it,  which  I  suppose  he 
carefully  wrote  out  himself  and  caused  to  be  published.  I  have  before  me  an  ex- 
tract from  that  speech  which  constitutes  the  evidence  this  pretended  "Old  Line  Whig" 
at  Chicago  brought  forward  to  show  that  Mr.  Clay  didn't  suppose  the  negro  was  in- 
cluded in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Hear  what  Mr.  Clay  said : 

"  And  what  is  the  foundation  of  this  appeal  to  me  in  Indiana,  to  liberate  the  slaves 
under  my  care  in  Kentucky  ?  It  is  a  general  declaration  in  the  act  announcing  to 
the  world  the  independence  of  the  thirteen  American  colonies,  that  all  men  are 
created  equal.  Now,  as  an  abstract  principle,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  that 
declaration  ;  and  it  is  desirable,  in  the  original  construction  of  society,  and  in  organ- 
ized societies,  to  keep  it  in  view  as  a  great  fundamental  principle.  But,  then,  I  ap- 
prehend that  in  no  society  that  ever  did  exist,  or  ever  shall  be  formed,  was  or  can  the 
equality  asserted  among  the  members  of  the  human  race,  be  practically  enforced  and 
carried  out.  There  are  portions,  large  portions,  women,  minors,  insane,  culprits, 
transient  sojourners,  that  will  always  probably  remain  subject  to  the  government  of 
another  portion  of  the  community. 

"That  declaration,  whatever  may  be  the  extent  of  its  import,  was  made  by  the 
delegations  of  the  thirteen  States.  In  most  of  them  slavery  existed,  and  had 
long  existed,  and  was  established  by  law.  It  was  introduced  and  forced  upon  the 
colonies  by  the  paramount  law  of  England.  Do  you  believe,  that  in  making  that 
declaration  the  States  that  concurred  in  it  intended  that  it  should  be  tortured  into  a 
virtual  emancipation  of  all  the  slaves  within  their  respective  limits  ?  Would  Vir- 
ginia and  other  Southern  States  have  ever  united  in  a  declaration  which  was  to  be 
interpreted  into  an  abolition  of  slavery  among  them  ?  Did  any  one  of  the  thirteen 
colonies  entertain  such  a  design  or  expectation  ?  To  impute  such  a  secret  and  una- 
vowed  purpose,  would  be  to  charge  a  political  fraud  upon  the  noblest  band  of  patriots 
that  ever  assembled  in  council — a  fraud  upon  the  Confederacy  of  the  Revolution — 
a  fraud  upon  the  union  of  those  States  whose  Constitution  not  only  recognized  the 
lawfulness  of  slavery,  but  permitted  the  importation  of  slaves  from  Africa  until  the 
year  1808." 

This  is  the  entire  quotation  brought  forward  to  prove  that  somebody  previous  to 
three  years  ago  had  said  the  negro  was  not  included  in  the  term  "  all  men "  in 
the  Declaration.  How  does  it  do  so  ?  In  what  way  has  it  a  tendency  to  prove, 
that  ?  Mr.  Clay  says  it  is  true  as  an  abstract  principle  that  all  men  are  created 
equal,  but  that  we  cannot  practically  apply  it  in  all  cases.  He  illustrates  this  by 
bringing  forward  *he  cases  of  females,  minors,  and  insane  persons,  with  whom  it  can- 
not be  enforced;  out  he  says  it  is  true  as  an  abstract  principle  in  the  organization 
of  society  as  well  as  in  organized  society,  and  it  should  be  kept  in  view  as  a  funda- 
mental principle.  Let  me  read  a  few  words  more  before  I  add  some  comments  of 
my  own.  Mr.  Clay  says  a  little  further  on : 


227 

"  I  desire  no  concealment  of  my  opinions  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery, 
I  look  upon  it  as  a  great  evil,  and  deeply  lament  that  we  have  derived  it  from  the 
parental  Government,  and  from  our  ancestors.  But  here  they  are,  and  the  question 
is,  how  can  they  be  best  dealt  with  ?  If  a  state  of  nature  existed,  and  we  were 
about  to  lay  the  foundations  of  society,  no  man  would  be  more  strongly  opposed  than 
I  should  be,  to  incorporating  the  institution  of  slavery  among  its  elements." 

Now,  here  in  this  same  book — in  this  same  speech — in  this  same  extract  brought 
forward  to  prove  that  Mr.  Clay  held  that  the  negro  was  not  included  in  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence — no  such  statement  on  his  part,  but  the  declaration  that  it  is 
a  great  fundamental  truth,  which  should  be  constantly  kept  in  view  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  society  and  in  societies  already  organized.  But  if  I  say  a  word  about  it — if  I 
attempt,  as  Mr.  Clay  said  all  good  men  ought  to  do,  to  keep  it  in  view — if,  in  this  "or- 
ganized society,"  I  ask  to  have  the  public  eye  turned  upon  it — if  I  ask,  in  relation  to 
the  organization  of  new  Territories,  that  the  public  eye  should  be  turned  upon  it — 
forthwith  I  am  villified  as  you  hear  me  to-day.  What  have  I  done,  that  I  have  not 
the  license  of  Henry  Clay's  illustrious  example  here  in  doing  ?  Have  I  done  aught 
that  I  have  not  his  authority  for,  while  maintaining  that  in  organizing  new  Territories 
and  societies,  this  fundamental  principle  should  be  regarded,  and  in  organized  society- 
holding  it  up  to  the  public  view  and  recognizing  what  he  recognized  as  the  great 
principle  of  free  government  ? 

And  when  this  new  principle — this  new  proposition  that  no  human  being  ever 
thought  of  three  years  ago — is  brought  forward,  I  combat  it  as  having  an  evil  ten- 
dency, if  not  an  evil  design.  I  combat  it  as  having  a  tendency  to  dehumanize  the 
negro — to  take  away  from  him  the  right  of  ever  striving  to  be  a  man.  I  combat  it 
as  being  one  of  the  thousand  things  constantly  done  in  these  days  to  prepare  the 
public  mind  to  make  property,  and  nothing  but  property,  of  the  negro  in  all  the  States 
of  this  Union. 

But  there  is  a  point  that  I  wish,  before  leaving  this  part  of  the  discussion,  to  ask 
attention  to.  I  have  read  and  I  repeat  the  words  of  Henry  Clay : 

"  I  desire  no  concealment  of  my  opinions  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery. 
I  look  upon  it  as  a  great  evil,  and  deeply  lament  that  we  have  derived  it  from 
the  parental  Government,  and  from  our  ancestors.  I  wish  every  slave  in  the  United 
States  was  in  the  country  of  his  ancestors.  But  here  they  are ;  the  question  is  hovr 
they  can  best  be  dealt  with  ?  If  a  state  of  nature  existed,  and  we  were  about  to 
lay  the  foundations  of  society,  no  man  would  be  more  strongly  opposed  than  I  should 
be,  to  incorporate  the  institution  of  slavery  among  its  elements." 

The  principle  upon  which  I  have  insisted  in  this  canvass,  is  in  relation  to  laying 
the  foundations  of  new  societies.  I  have  never  sought  to  apply  these  principles  to 
the  old  States  for  the  purpose  of  abolishing  slavery  in  those  States.  It  is  nothing 
but  a  miserable  perversion  of  what  I  have  said,  to  assume  that  I  have  declared  Mis- 
souri, or  any  other  slave  State,  shall  emancipate  her  slaves.  I  have  proposed  no 
such  thing.  But  when  Mr.  Clay  says  that  in  laying  the  foundations  of  societies  in 
our  Territories  where  it  does  not  exist,  he  would  be  opposed  to  the  introduction  of 
slavery  as  an  element,  I  insist  that  we  have  his  ivarrant — his  license  for  insisting 
upon  the  exclusion  of  that  element  which  he  declared  in  such  strong  and  emphatic 
language  was  most  hateful  to  him. 

Judge  Douglas  has  again  referred  to  a  Springfield  speech  in  which  I  said  "a 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  The  Judge  has  so  often  made  (he 
entire  quotation  from  that  speech  that  I  can  make  it  Irom  memory.  I  used  this 
language  : 

''  We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year,  since  a  policy  was  initiated  with  the  avowed 
object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  Under  the 
operation  of  this  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly 
augmented.  In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached 
and  passed.  '  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  Govern- 
ment cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the 


228 

house  to  fall — but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  oa« 
thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further 
spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is 
in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  till  it 
shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States — old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as 
South." 

That  extract  and  the  sentiments  expressed  in  it,  have  been  extremely  offensive 
to  Judge  Douglas.  He  has  warred  upon  them  as  Satan  wars  upon  the  Bible.  His 
perversions  upon  it  are  endless.  Here  now  are  my  views  upon  it  in  brief. 

I  said  we  were  now  far  into  the  fifth  year,  since  a  policy  was  initiated  with  the 
avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  Is 
it  not  so  ?  When  that  Nebraska  bill  was  brought  forward  four  years  ago  last  Janu- 
ary, was  it  not  for  the  "  avowed  object "  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation  ? 
We  were  to  have  no  more  agitation  in  Congress  it  was  all  to  be  banished  to  the 
Territories.  By  the  way,  I  will  remark  here  that,  as  Judge  Douglas  is  very  fond  of 
complimenting  Mr.  Crittenden  in  these  days,  Mr.  Crittenden  has  said  there  was  a 
falsehood  in  that  whole  business,  for  there  was  no  slavery  agitation  at  that  time  to 
allay.  We  were  for  a  little  while  quiet  on  the  troublesome  thing,  and  that  very  al- 
laying plaster  of  Judge  Douglas's  stirred  it  up  again.  But  was  it  not  understood  or 
intimated  with  the  "  confident  promise  "  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation  ? 
Surely  it  was.  In  every  speech  you  heard  Judge  Douglas  make,  until  he  got  into 
this  "  imbroglio,"  as  they  call  it,  with  the  Administration  about  the  Lecompton  Con- 
stitution, every  speech  on  that  Nebraska  bill  was  full  of  his  felicitations  that  we  were 
just  at  the  end  of  the  slavery  agitation.  The  hist  tip  of  the  last  joint  of  the  old  ser- 
pent's tail  was  just  drawing  out  of  view.  But  has  it  proved  so  ?  I  have  asserted 
that  under  that  policy  that  agitation  "  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly 
augmented."  When  was  there  ever  a  greater  agitation  in  Congress  than  last  winter? 
When  was  it  as  great  in  the  country  as  to-day  ? 

There  was  a  collateral  object- in  the  introduction  of  that  Nebraska  policy  which 
was  to  clothe  the  people  of  the  Territories  with  a  superior  degree  of  self-government, 
beyond  what  they  had  ever  had  before.  The  first  object  and  the  main  one  of  con- 
ferring upon  the  people  a  higher  degree  of  "  self-government,"  is  a  question  of  fact 
to  be  determined  by  you  in  answer  to  a  single  question.  Have  you  ever  heard  or 
known  of  a  people  any  where  on  earth  who  had  as  little  to  do,  as,  in  the  first  in- 
stance of  its  use,  the  people  of  Kansas  had  with  this  same  right  of  "  self-govern- 
ment?" In  its  main  policy  and  in  its  collateral  object,  it  has  been  nothing  but  a  liv- 
ing, creeping  lie  from  the  time  of  its  introduction  till  to-day. 

I  have  intimated  that  I  thought  the  agitation  would  not  cease  until  a  crisis  should 
have  been  reached  and  passed.  I  have  stated  in  what  way  I  thought  it  would  be 
reached  and  passed.  I  have  said  that  it  might  go  one  way  or  the  other.  We  might, 
by  arresting  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  placing  it  where  the  fathers  originally 
placed  it,  put  it  where  the  public  mind  should  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  was  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction.  Thus  the  agitation  may  cease.  It  may  be  pushed 
forward  until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North 
as  well  as  South.  I  have  said,  and  I  repeat,  my  wish  is  that  the  further  spread  of 
it  may  be  arrested,  and  that  it  may  be  placed  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the 
belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  I  have  expressed  that  as  rny  wish. 
I  entertain  the  opinion  upon  evidence  sufficient  to  my  mind,  that  the  fathers  of  tins 
Government  placed  that  institution  where  the  public  mind  did  rest  in  the  belief  that 
it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  Let  me  ask  why  they  made  provision 
that  the  source  of  slavery — the  African  slave-trade — should  be  cut  off  at  the  end  of 
twenty  years  ?  Why  did  they  make  provision  that  in  all  the  new  territory  we 
owned  at  that  time,  slavery  should  be  forever  inhibited  ?  Why  stop  its  spread  in 
one  direction  and  cut  off  its  source  in  another,  if  they  did  not  look  to  its  being  placed 
in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction  ? 

Again;  the  institution  of  slavery  is  only  mentioned  in  the  Constitution  of  the 


229 

United  States  two  or  three  times,  and  in  neither  of  these  cases  does  the  word 
**  slavery  "  or  "  negro  race  "  occur ;  but  covert  language  is  used  each  time,  and  for  a 
purpose  full  of  significance.  What  is  the  language  in  regard  to  the  prohibition  of 
the  African  slave-trade  ?  It  runs  in  about  this  way  :  "  The  migration  or  importa- 
tion of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  preper  to  admit, 
shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress  prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  eight." 

The  next  allusion  in  the  Constitution  to  the  question  of  slavery  and  the  black 
race,  is  on  the  subject  of  the  basis  of  representation,  and  there  the  language  used  is, 
"  Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States 
which  may  be  included  within  this  Union,  according  to  their  respective  numbers, 
which  shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons,  in- 
cluding those  bound  to  service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not 
taxed  —  three-fifths  of  all  other  persons." 

It  says  "persons,"  not  slaves,  not  negroes  ;  but  this  "three-fifths"  can  be  applied 
to  no  other  class  among  us  than  the  negroes. 

Lastly,  in  the  provision  for  the  reclamation  of  fugitive  slaves,  it  is  said :  "  No  per- 
son held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  an- 
other, shall  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such 
service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  ser- 
vice or  labor  may  be  due."  There  again  there  is  no  mention  of  the  word  "  negro  " 
or  of  slavery.  In  all  three  of  these  places,  being  the  only  allusions  to  slavery  in  the 
instrument,  covert  language  is  used.  Language  is  used  not  suggesting  that  slavery 
existed  or  that  the  black  race  were  among  us.  And  I  understand  the  cotempora- 
neous  history  of  those  times  to  be  that  covert  language  was  used  with  a  purpose,  and 
that  purpose  was  that  in  our  Constitution,  which  it  was  hoped  and  is  still  hoped  will 
endure  forever — when  it  should  be  read  by  intelligent  and  patriotic  men,  after  the  in- 
stitution of  slavery  had  passed  from  among  us — there  should  be  nothing  on  the  face 
of  the  great  charter  of  liberty  suggesting  that  such  a  thing  as  negro  slavery  had 
ever  existed  among  us.  This  is  part  of  the  evidence  that  the  fathers  of  the  Govern- 
ment expected  and  intended  the  institution  of  slavery  to  come  to  an  end.  They  ex- 
pected and  intended  that  it  should  be  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  And 
when  I  say  that  I  desire  to  see  the  further  spread  of  it  arrested,  I  only  say  I  desire 
to  see  that  done  which  the  fathers  have  first  done.  When  I  say  I  desire  to  see  it 
placed  where  the  public  mind  will  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ulti- 
mate extinction,  I  only  say  I  desire  to  see  it  placed  where  they  placed  it.  It  is  not 
true  that^our  fathers,  as  Judge  Douglas  assumes,  made  this  Government  part  slave 
and  part  free.  Understand  the  sense  in  which  he  puts  it.  He  assumes  that  slavery 
is  a  rightful  thing  within  itself — was  introduced  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution. 
The  exact  truth  is,  that  they  found  the  institution  existing  among  us,  and  they  left 
it  as  they  found  it.  But  in  making  the  Government  they  left  this  institution  with 
many  clear  marks  of  disapprobation  upon  it.  They  found  slavery  among  them,  and 
they  left  it  among  them  because  of  the  difficulty — the  absolute  impossibility  of  its 
immediate  removal.  And  when  Judge  Douglas  asks  me  why  we  cannot  let  it  re- 
main part  slave  and  part  free,  as  the  fathers  of  the  Government  made  it,  he  asks  a 
question  based  upon  an  assumption  which  is  itself  a  falsehood ;  and  I  turn  upv.A.  him 
and  ask  him  the  question,  when  the  policy  that  the  fathers  of  the  Government  had 
adopted  in  relation  to  this  element  among  us  was  the  best  policy  in  the  world— the 
only  wise  policy — the  only  policy  that  we  can  ever  safely  continue  upon — lhat  will 
ever  give  us  peace,  unless  this  dangerous  element  masters  us  all  and  becomes  a  nation- 
al institution — I  turn  upon  him  and  ask  him  why  he  could  not  leave  it  alone.  I  turn 
and  ask  him  why  he  was  driven  to  the  necessity  of  introducing  a  new  policy  in  re- 
gard to  it.  He  has  himself  said  he  introduced  a  new  policy.  He  said  so  in  his 
speech  on  the  22d  of  March  of  the  present  year,  1858.  I  ask  him  why  he  could  not 
let  it  remain  where  our  fathers  placed  it.  I  ask,  too,  of  Judge  Douglas  and  his 
friends  why  we  shall  not  again  place  this  institution  upon  the  basis  on  which  the 


280 

fathers  left  it.  I  ask  you,  when  he  infers  that  I  am  in  favor  of  setting  the  free  and 
slave  States  at  Avar,  when  the  institution  was  placed  in  that  attitude  by  those  who 
made  the  Constitution,  did  they  make  any  war?  If  we  had  no  war  out  of  it,  when 
thus  placed,  wherein  is  the  ground  of  beh'ef  that  we  shall  have  war  out  of  it,  if  we 
return  to  that  policy  ?  Have  we  had  any  peace  upon  this  matter  springing  from  any 
other  basis  ?  I  maintain  that  we  have  not,  I  have  proposed  nothing  more  than  a 
return  to  the  policy  of  the  fathers. 

I  confess,  when  I  propose  a  certain  measure  of  policy,  it  is  not  enough  for  me  that 
1  do  not  intend  any  thing  evil  in  the  result,  but  it  is  incumbent  on  me  to  show  that 
it  has  not  a  tendency  to  that  result.  I  have  met  Judge  Douglas  in  that  point  of  view. 
I  have  not  only  made  Uie  declaration  that  I  do  not  mean  to  produce  a  conflict  between 
the  States,  but  I  have  tried  to  show  by  fair  reasoning,  and  I  think  I  have  shown  to 
the  minds  of  fair  men,  that  I  propose  nothing  but  what  has  a  most  peaceful  tendency. 
The  quotation  that  I  happened  to  make  in  that  Springfield  speech,  that  "a  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,"  and  which  has  proved  so  offensive  to  the  Judge, 
was  part  and  parcel  of  the  same  tiling.  He  tries  to  show  that  variety  in  the  domes- 
tic institutions  of  the  different  States  is  necessary  and  indispensable.  I  do  not  dis- 
pute it.  I  have  no  controversy  with  Judge  Douglas  about  that.  I  shall  very  readily 
agree  with  him  that  it  would  be  foolish  for  us  to  insist  upon  having  a  cranberry  law 
here,  in  Illinois,  where  we  have  no  cranberries,  because  they  have  a  cranberry  law 
in  Indiana,  where  they  have  cranberries.  I  should  insist  that  it  would  be  exceedingly 
wrong  in  us  to  deny  to  Virginia  the  right  to  enact  oyster  laws,  where  they  have 
oysters,  because  we  want  no  such  laws  here.  I  understand,  I  hope,  quite  as  well  as 
Judge  Douglas  or  any  body  else,  that  the  variety  in  the  soil  and  climate  and  face  of 
the  country,  and  consequent  variety  in  the  industrial  pursuits  and  productions  of  a 
country,  require  systems  of  law  conforming  to  this  variety  in  the  natural  features  of 
the  country.  I  understand  quite  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  that  if  we  here  raise  a 
barrel  of  Hour  more  than  we  want,  and  the  Louisianiaus  raise  a  barrel  of  sugar  more 
than  they  want,  it  is  of  mutual  advantage  to  exchange.  That  produces  commerce, 
brings  us  together,  and  makes  us  better  friends.  We  like  one  another  the  more  for  it. 
And  I  understand  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  or  any  body  else,  that  these  mutual 
accommodations  are  the  cements  which  bind  together  the  different  parts  of  this 
Union — that  instead  of  being  a  thing  to  "divide  the  house" — figuratively  expressing 
the  Union — they  tend  to  sustain  it ;  they  are  the  props  of  the  house  tending  always 
to  hold  it  up. 

But  when  I  have  admitted  all  this,  I  ask  if  there  is  any  parallel  between  these 
things  and  this  institution  of  slavery  ?  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  parallel  at  all 
between  them.  Consider  it.  When  have  we  had  any  difficulty  or  quarrel  amongst 
ourselves  about  the  cranberry  laws  of  Indiana,  or  the  oyster  laws  of  Virginia,  or  the 
pine  lumber  laws  of  Maine,  or  the  fact  that  Louisiana  produces  sugar,  arid  Illinois 
flour  ?  When  have  we  had  any  quarrels  over  these  things  ?  When  have  we  had 
perfect  peace  in  regard  to  this  thing  which  I  say  is  an  element  of  discord  in  this 
Union  ?  We  have  sometimes  had  peace,  but  when  was  it  ?  It  was  when  the  insti- 
tution of  slavery  remained  quiet  where  it  was.  We  have  had  difficulty  and  turmoil 
whenever  it  has  made  a  struggle  to  spread  itself  where  it  was  not.  I  ask,  then,  if 
experience  does  not  speak  in  thunder-tones,  telling  us  that  the  policy  which  has 
given  peace  to  the  country  heretofore,  being  returned  to,  gives  the  greatest  promise 
of  peace  again.  You  may  say,  and  Judge  Douglas  has  intimated  the  same  thing,, 
that  all  this  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  is  the  mere  agitation  of 
office-seekers  and  ambitious  northern  politicians.  He  thinks  we  want  to  get  "his 
place,"  I  suppose.  I  agree  that  there  are  office-seekers  amongst  us.  The  Bible 
says  somewhere  that  we  are  desperately  selfish.  I  think  we  would  have  discovered 
that  fact  without  the  Bible.  I  do  not  claim  that  I  am  any  less  so  than  the  average 
of  men,  but  I  do  claim  that  I  am  not  more  selfish  than  Judge  Douglas. 

But  is  it  true  that  all  the  difficulty  and  agitation  we  have  in  regard  to  this  institu- 
tion of  slavery  springs  from  office-seeking — from  the  mere  ambition  of  politicians  ? 


231 

Is  that  the  truth?  How  many  times  have  we  had  danger  from  this  question?  Go 
back  to  the  day  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Go  back  to  the  Nullification  ques- 
tion, at  the  bottom  of  which  lay  this  same  slavery  question.  Go  back  to  the  time  of 
the  Annexation  of  Texas.  Go  back  to  the  troubles  that  led  to  the  Compromise  of 
1850.  You  will  find  that  every  time,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Nullification 
question,  they  sprung  from  an  endeavor  to  spread  this  institution.  There  never  was 
a  party  in  the  history  of  this  country,  and  there  probably  never  will  be,  of  sufficient 
strength  to  disturb  the  general  peace  of  the  country.  Parties  themselves  may  be 
divided  and  quarrel  on  minor  questions,  yet  it  extends  not  beyond  the  parties 
themselves.  But  does  not  this  question  make  a  disturbance  outside  of  political 
circles?  Does  it  not  enter  into  the  churches  and  rend  them  asunder?  What 
divided  the  great  Methodist  Church  into  two  parts,  North  and  South?  What 
has  raised  this  constant  disturbance  in  every  Presbyterian  General  Assembly 
that  meets  ?  What  disturbed  the  Unitarian  Church  in  this  very  city  two  years 
ago?  What  has  jarred  and  shaken  the  great  American  Tract  Society  recently, 
not  yet  splitting  it,  but  sure  to  divide  it  in  the  end?  Is  it  not  this  same  mighty, 
deep-seated  power  that  somehow  operates  on  the  minds  of  men,  exciting  and 
stirring  them  up  in  every  avenue  of  society — in  politics,  in  religion,  in  literature, 
in  morals,  in  all  the  manifold  relations  of  life  ?  Is  this  the  work  of  politicians  ? 
Is  that  irresistible  power  which  for  fifty  years  has  shaken  the  Government  and 
agitated  the  people  to  be  stilled  and  subdued  by  pretending  that  it  is  an  exceed- 
ingly simple  thing,  and  we  ought  not  to  talk  about  it  ?  If  you  will  get  every  body  else 
to  stop  talking  about  it,  I  assure  you  I  will  quit  before  they  have  half  done  so.  But 
where  is  the  philosophy  or  statesmanship  which  assumes  that  you  can  quiet  that  dis- 
turbing element  in  our  society  which  has  disturbed  us  for  more  than  half  a  century, 
which  has  been  the  only  serious  danger  that  has  threatened  our  institutions — I  say, 
where  is  the  philosophy  or  the  statesmanship  based  on  the  assumption  that  we  are  to 
quit  talking  about  it,  and  that  the  public  mind  is  all  at  once  to  cease  being  agitated 
by  it?  Yet  this  is  the  policy  here  in  the  north  that  Douglas  is  advocating — that  we 
are  to  care  nothing  about  it !  I  ask  you  if  it  is  not  a  false  philosophy  ?  Is  it  not  a 
false  statesmanship  that  undertakes  to  build  up  a  system  of  policy  upon  the  basis  of 
oaring  nothing  about  the  very  thing  that  every  body  does  care  the  most  about  ? — a  thing 
which  all  experience  has  shown  we  care  a  very  great  deal  about? 

The  Judge  alludes  very  often  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  to  the  exclusive  right 
whk'h  the  States  have  to  decide  the  whole  thing  for  themselves.  I  agree  with  him 
very  readily  that  the  different  States  have  that  right.  He  is  but  fighting  a  man  of 
straw  when  he  assumes  that  I  am  contending  against  the  right  of  the  States  to  do  as 
they  plea-se  about  it.  Our  controversy  with  him  is  in  regard  to  the  new  Territories. 
We  agree  that  when  the  States  come  in  as  States  they  have  the  right  and  the  power 
to  do  as  they  please.  We  have  no  power  as  citizens  of  the  free  States  or  in  our 
federal  capacity  as  members  of  the  Federal  Union  through  the  General  Government, 
to  disturb  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  We  profess  constantly  that  we  have 
no  more  inclination  than  belief  in  the  power  of  the  Government  to  disturb  it ;  yet 
we  are  driven  constantly  to  defend  ourselves  from  the  assumption  that  we  are  war- 
ring upon  the  rights  of  the  States.  What  I  insist  upon  is,  that  the  new  Territories 
shall  be  kept  free  from  it  while  in  the  Territorial  condition.  Judge  Douglas  assumes 
that  we  have  no  interest  in  them — that  we  have  no  right  whatever  to  interfere.  I 
think  we  have  some  interest.  I  think  that  as  white  men  we  have.  Do  we  not  wish  for 
an  outlet  for  our  surplus  population,  if  I  may  so  express  myself?  Do  we  not  feel  an  in- 
terest in  getting  to  that  outlet  with  such  institutions  as  we  would  like  to  have  prevail 
there  ?  If  you  go  to  the  Territory  opposed  to  slavery  and  another  man  comes  upon  the 
same  ground  with  his  slave,  upon  the  assumption  that  the  things  are  equal,  it  turns  out 
that  he  has  the  equal  right  all  his  way  and  you  have  no  part  of  it  your  way.  If  he  goes 
in  and  makes  it  a  slave  Territory,  and  by  consequence  a  slave  State,  is  it  not  time  that 
those  who  desire  to  have  it  a  free  State  were  on  equal  ground.  Let  me  suggest  it 
in  a  different  way.  How  many  Democrats  are  there  about  here  ["A  thousand "J 


232 

have  left  slave  States  and  come  into  the  free  State  of  Illinois  to  ge»  rid  of  the 
institution  of  slavery?  [Another  voice — "A  thousand  and  one."]  I  reckon  there 
are  a  thousand  and  one.  I  will  ask  you,  if  the  policy  you  are  now  advocating  had 
prevailed  when  thw  country  was  in  a  Territorial  condition,  where  would  you  have 
gone  to  get  rid  of  it?  Where  would  you  have  found  your  free  State  or  Territory  to 
go  to  ?  And  when  hereafter,  for  any  cause,  the  people  in  this  place  shall  desire  to 
find  new  homes,  if  they  wish  to  be  rid  of  the  institution,  where  will  they  find  the 
place  to  go  to? 

Now  irrespective  of  the  moral  aspect  of  this  question  as  to  whether  there  is  a 
right  or  wrong  in  enslaving  a  negro,  I  am  still  in  favor  of  our  new  Territories  being 
in  such  a  condition  that  white  men  may  find  a  home — may  find  some  spot  where 
they  can  better  their  condition — where  they  can  settle  upon  new  soil  and  better  their 
condition  in  life.  I  am  in  favor  of  this  not  merely  (I  must  say  it  here  as  I  have 
elsewhere)  for  our  own  people  who  are  born  amongst  us,  but  as  an  outlet  for  free 
white  people  every  where,  the  world  over — in  which  Hans  and  Baptiste  and  Patrick, 
and  all  other  men  from  all  the  world,  may  find  new  homes  and  better  their  conditions 
in  life. 

I  have  stated  upon  former  occasions,  and  I  may  as  well  state  again,  what  I  under- 
stand to  be  the  real  issue  in  this  controversy  between  Judge  Douglas  and  myself. 
On  the  point  of  my  wanting  to  make  war  between  the  free  and  the  slave  States, 
there  has  been  no  issue  between  us.  So,  too,  when  he  assumes  that  I  am  in  favor 
of  introducing  a  perfect  social  and  political  equality  between  the  white  and  black 
races.  These  are  false  issues,  upon  which  Judge  Douglas  has  tried  to  force  the  con- 
troversy. There  is  no  foundation  in  truth  for  the  charge  that  I  maintain  either  of 
these  propositions.  The  real  issue  in  this  controversy — the  one  pressing  upon  every 
mind — is  the  sentiment  on  the  part  of  one  class  that  looks  upon  the  institution  of 
slavery  as  a  wrong,  and  of  another  class  that  does  not  look  upon  it  as  a  wrong. 
The  sentiment  that  contemplates  the  institution  of  slavery  in  this  country  as  a  wrong 
is  the  sentiment  of  the  Republican  party.  It  is  the  sentiment  around  which  all  their 
actions — all  their  arguments  circle — from  which  all  their  propositions  radiate.  They 
look  upon  it  as  being  a  moral,  social  and  political  wrong ;  and  while  they  contemplate 
it  as  such,  they  nevertheless  have  due  regard  for  its  actual  existence  among  us,  and 
the  difficulties  of  getting  rid  of  it  in  any  satisfactory  way  and  to  all  the  constitutional 
obligations  thrown  about  it.  Yet  having  a  due  regard  for  these,  they  desire  a  policy 
in  regard  to  it  that  looks  to  its  not  creating  any  more  danger.  They  insist  that  it 
should  as  far  as  may  be,  be  treated  as  a  wrong,  and  one  of  the  methods  of  treating 
it  us  a  wrong  is  to  make  provision  that  it  shall  grow  no  larger.  They  also  desire  a 
policy  that  looks  to  a  peaceful  end  of  slavery  at  sometime,  as  being  wrong.  These 
are  the  views  they  entertain  in  regard  to  it  as  I  understand  them ;  and  all  their  sen- 
timents— all  their  arguments  and  propositions  are  brought  within  this  range.  I  have 
said  and  I  repeat  it  here,  that  if  there  be  a  man  amongst  us  who  does  not  think  that 
the  institution  of  slavery  is  wrong  in  any  one  of  the  aspects  of  which  I  have  spoken, 
he  is  misplaced  and  ought  not  to  be  with  us.  And  if  there  be  a  man  amongst  us 
who  is  so  impatient  of  it  as  a  wrong  as  to  disregard  its  actual  presence  among  us 
and  the  difficulty  of  getting  rid  of  it  suddenly  in  a  satisfactory  way,  and  to  disregard 
the  constitutional  obligations  thrown  about  it,  that  man  is  misplaced  if  he  is  on  our 
platform.  We  disclaim  sympathy  with  him  in  practical  action.  He  is  not  placed 
properly  with  us. 

On  this  subject  of  treating  it  as  a  wrong,  and  limiting  its  spread,  let  me  say  a 
word.  Has  any  thing  ever  threatened  the  existence  of  this  Union  save  and  except 
this  very  institution  of  slavery  ?  What  is  it  that  we  hold  most  dear  amongst  us  ? 
Our  own  liberty  and  prosperity.  What  has  ever  threatened  our  liberty  and  prosper- 
ity save  and  except  this  institution  of  slavery  ?  If  this  is  true,  how  do  you  propose 
to  improve  the  condition  of  things  by  enlarging  slavery — by  spreading  it  out  and 
making  it  bigger?  You  may  have  a  wen  or  cancer  upon  your  person  and  not  be 
able  to  cut  it  out  lest  you  bleed  to  death ;  but  surely  it  is  no  way  to  cure  it,  to  engraf* 


233 

it  and  spread  it  over  your  whole  body.  That  is  no  proper  way  of  treating  what  you 
regard  a  wrong.  You  see  this  peaceful  way  of  dealing  with  it  as  a  wrong — restrict- 
ing the  Spread  of  it,  and  not  allowing  it  to  go  into  new  countries  where  it  has  nol 
already  existed.  That  is  the  peaceful  way,  the  old-fashioned  way,  the  way  in  which 
the  fathers  themselves  set  us  the  example.  , 

On  the  other  hand,  I  have  said  there  is  a  sentiment  which  treats  it  as  not  bein« 
*rong.  That  is  the  Democratic  sentiment  of  this  day.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  thai 
•{very  man  who  stands  within  that  range  positively  asserts  that  it  is  right.  Thai 
class  will  include  all  who  positively  assert  that  it  is  right,  and  all  who  like  Judg« 
Douglas  treat  it  as  indifferent  and  do  not  say  it  is  either  right  or  wrong.  These  twc 
classes  of  men  fall  within  the  general  class  of  those  who  do  not  look  upon  it  as  u 
wrong.  And  if  there  be  among  you  any  body  who  supposes  that  he,  as  a  Democrat 
i^an  consider  himself  "as  much  opposed  to  slavery  as  anybody,"  I  would  like  t<f 
reason  with  him.  You  never  treat  it  as  a  wrong.  What  other  thing  that  you  con 
sider  as  a  wrong,  do  you  deal  with  as  you  deal  with  that  ?  Perhaps  you  say  it  is 
wrong,  but  your  leader  never  does,  and  you  quarrel  with  any  body  who  says  it  is  ivrong. 
Although  you  pretend  to  say  so  yourself  you  can  find  no  fit  place  to  deal  with  it  as 
a  wrong.  You  must  not  say  any  thing  about  it  in  the  free  States,  because  it  is  not 
here.  You  must  not  say  any  thing  about  it  in  the  slave  States,  because  it  is  there. 
You  must  not  say  any  thing  about  it  in  the  pulpit,  because  that  is  religion  and  has 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  You  must  not  say  any  thing  about  it  in  politics,  because  that 
will  disturb  the  security  of  "my  place"  There  is  no  place  to  talk  about  it  as  being  a 
wrong,  although  you  say  yourself  it  is  a  wrong.  But  finally  you  will  screw  yourself 
up  to  the  belief  that  if  the  people  of  the  slave  Suites  should  adopt  a  system  of 
gradual  emancipation  on  the  slavery  question,  you  would  be  in  favor  of  it.  You 
would  be  in  favor  of  it.  You  say  that  is  getting  it  in  the  right  place,  and  you  would 
be  glad  to  see  it  succeed.  But  you  are  deceiving  yourself.  You  all  know  that 
Frank  Blair  and  Gratz  Brown,  down  there  in  St.  Louis,  undertook  to  introduce  that 
system  in  Missouri.  They  fought  as  valiantly  as  they  could  for  the  system  of  grad- 
ual emancipation  which  you  pretend  you  would  be  glad  to  see  succeed.  Now  I  will 
bring  you  to  the  test.  After  a  hard  fight  they  were  beaten,  and  when  the  news  came 
over  here  you  threw  up  your  hats  and  hurraed  for  Democracy.  More  than  that, 
take  all  the  argument  made  in  favor  of  the  system  you  have  proposed,  and  it  care- 
fully excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  any  thing  wrong  in  the  institution  of  slavery. 
The  arguments  to  sustain  that  policy  carefully  excluded  it.  Even  here  to-day  you 
heard  Judge  Douglas  quarrel  with  me  because  I  uttered  a  wish  that  it  might  some- 
time come  to  an  end.  Although  Henry  Clay  could  say  he  wished  every  slave  in  the 
United  States  was  in  the  country  of  his  ancestors,  I  am  denounced  by  those  pretend- 
ing to  respect  Henry  Clay  for  uttering  a  wish  that  it  might  sometime,  in  some  peace- 
ful way,  come  to  an  end.  The  Democratic  policy  in  regard  to  that  institution  will 
not  tolerate  the  merest  breath,  the  slightest  hint,  of  the  least  degree  of  wrong  about 
it.  Try  it  by  some  of  Judge  Douglas's  arguments.  He  says  he  "don't  care  whether 
it  is  voted  up  or  voted  down"  in  the  Territories.  I  do  not  care  myself  in  dealing 
v/ith  tliat  expression,  whether  it  is  intended  to  be  expressive  of  his  individual  senti- 
ments on  the  subject,  or  only  of  the  national  policy  he  desires  to  have  established. 
It  is  alike  valuable  for  my  purpose.  Any  man  can  say  that  who  does  not  see  any 
thing  wrong  in  slavery,  but  no  man  can  logically  say  it  who  does  see  a  wrong  in  it ; 
because  no  man  can  logically  s*iy  he  don't  care  whether  a  wrong  is  voted  up  or  voted 
down.  He  may  say  he  don't  care  whether  an  indifferent  thing  is  voted  up  or  down, 
but  he  must  logically  have  a  choice  between  a  right  thing  and  a  wrong  thing.  He 
contends  that  whatever  community  wants  slaves  has  a  right  to  have  them.  So  they 
have  if  it  is  not  a  wrong.  But  if  it  is  a  wrong,  he  cannot  say  people  have  a  right  to 
do  wrong.  He  says  that  upon  the  score  of  equality,  slaves  should  be  allowed  to  go 
hi  ft  new  Territory,  like  other  property.  This  is  strictly  logical  if  there  is  no  dif- 
forence  between  it  and  other  property.  If  it  and  other  property  are  equal,  his  argu- 
ment is  entirely  logical.  But  if  you  insist  that  one  is  wrong  and  the  other  right, 


234 

there  is  no  use  to  institute  a  comparison  between  right  and  wrong.  You  may  turn 
over  every  thing  in  the  Democratic  policy  from  beginning  to  end,  whether  in  the 
shape  it  takes  on  the  statute  book,  in  the  shape  it  takes  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
in  the  shape  it  takes  in  conversation,  or  the  shape  it  takes  in  short  maxim-like 
arguments — it  every  where  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  any  thing  wrong 
in  it. 

That  is  the  real  issue.  That  is  the  issue  that  will  continue  in  this  country  when 
these  poor  tongues  of  Judge  Douglas  and  myself  shall  be  silent.  It  is  the  eternal 
.struggle  between  these  two  principles — right  and  wrong — throughout  the  world. 
They  are  the  two  principles  that  have  stood  face  to  face  from  the  beginning  of  time ; 
and  will  ever  continue  to  struggle.  The  one  is  the  common  right  of  humanity  and 
the  other  the  divine  right  of  kings.  It  is  the  same  principle  in  whatever  shape  it 
develops  itself.  It  is  the  same  spirit  that  says,  "You  work  and  toil  and  earn  bread, 
and  I'll  eat  it."  No  matter  in  what  shape  it  comes,  Whether  from  the  mouth  of  a 
king  who  seeks  to  bestride  the  people  of  his  own  nation  and  live  by  the  fruit  of  their 
labor,  or  from  one  race  of  men  as  an  apology  for  enslaving  another  race,  it  is  the 
same  tyrannical  principle.  I  was  glad  to  express  my  gratitude  at  Quincy,  and  I 
re-express  it  here  to  Judge  Douglas — that  he  looks  to  no  end  of  the  institution  of 
slavery.  That  will  help  the  people  to  see  where  the  struggle  really  is.  It  will  here- 
after place  with  us  all  men  who  really  do  wish  the  wrong  may  have  an  end.  And 
whenever  we  can  get  rid  of  the  fog  which  obscures  the  real  question — when  we  can 
get  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  to  avow  a  policy  looking  to  its  perpetuation — we 
can  get  out  from  among  that  class  of  men  and  bring  them  to  the  side  of  those  who 
treat  it  as  a  wrong.  Then  there  will  soon  be  an  end  of  it,  and  that  end  will  be  its 
"  ultimate  extinction."  Whenever  the  issue  can  be  distinctly  made,  and  all  extrane- 
ous matter  thrown  out  so  that  men  can  fairly  see  the  real  difference  between  the 
parties,  this  controversy  will  soon  be  settled,  and  it  will  be  done  peaceably  too. 
There  will  be  no  war,  no  violence.  It  will  be  placed  again  where  the  wisest  and 
best  men  of  the  world  placed  it.  Brooks  of  South  Carolina  once  declared  that  when 
this  Constitution  was  framed,  its  framers  did  not  look  to  the  institution  existing  until 
this  day.  When  he  said  this,  I  think  he  stated  a  fact  that  is  fully  borne  out  by  the 
history  of  the  times.  But  he  also  said  they  were  better  and  wiser  men  than  the  men 
of  these  days ;  yet  the  men  of  these  days  had  experience  which  they  had  not,  and  by 
the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin  it  became  a  necessity  in  this  country  that  slavery 
should  be  perpetual.  I  now  say  that,  willingly  or  unwillingly,  purposely  or  without 
purpose,  Judge  Douglas  has  been  the  most  prominent  instrument  in  changing  the 
petition  of  the  institution  of  slavery  which  the  fathers  of  the  Government  expected 
to  come  to  an  end  ere  this — and  putting  it  upon  Brooks's  cotton-gin  basis — placing  it 
where  he  openly  confesses  he  has  no  desire  there  shall  ever  be  an  end  of  it. 

I  understand  I  have  ten  minutes  yet.  I  will  employ  it  in  saying  something  about 
this  argument  Judge  Douglas  uses,  while  he  sustains  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  that 
the  people  of  the  Territories  can  still  somehow  exclude  slavery.  The  first  thing  I 
ask  attention  to  is  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas  constantly  said,  before  the  decision, 
that  whether  they  could  or  not,  was  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court.  But  after 
the  court  has  made  the  decision  he  virtually  says  it  is  not  a  question  for  the  Supreme 
Court,  but  for  the  people.  And  how' is  it  he  tells  us  they  can  exclude  it?  lie  says 
it  needs  "police  regulations,"  and  that  admits  of  "unfriendly  legislation."  Although 
it  is  a  right  established  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  take  a  slaves  into 
a  Territory  of  the  United  States  and  hold  him  as  property,  yet  unless  the  Territo- 
rial Legislature  will  give  friendly  legislation,  and,  more  especially,  if  they  adopt 
unfriendly  legislation,  they  can  practically  exclude  him.  Now,  without  meeting  this 
proposition  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  pass  to  consider  the  real  Constitutional  obligation. 
Let  me  take  the  gentleman  who  looks  me  in  the  face  before  me,  and  let  us  suppose 
that  he  is  a  member  of  the  Territorial  Legislature.  The  first  thing  he  will  do  will 
be  to  swear  that  he  will  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  His  neigh- 
bor by  his  side  in  the  Territory  has  slaves  and  needs  Territorial  legislation  to  enable 


235 

him  to  enjoy  that  Constitutional  rigkt.  Can  lie  withhold  the  legislation  which  his 
neighbor  needs  for  the  enjoyment  of  a  right  which  is  fixed  in  his  favor  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  which  he  has  sworn  to  support?  Can  he  withhold  it 
without  violating  his  oath  ?  And  more  especially,  can  he  pass  unfriendly  legislation 
to  violate  his  oath  ?  Why,  this  is  a  monstrous  sort  of  talk  about  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States !  There  has  never  been  as  outlandish  or  lawkss  a  doctrine  from 
the  mouth  of  any  respectable  man  on  earth.  I  do  not  believe  it  is  a  Constitutional 
right  to  hold  slaves  in  a  Territory  of  the  United  States.  I  believe  the  decision  was 
improperly  made  and  I  go  for  reversing  it.  Judge  Douglas  is  furious  against  those 
who  go  for  reversing  a  decision.  But  he  is  for  legislating  it  out  of  all  force  while 
the  law  itself  stands.  I  repeat  that  there  has  never  been  so  monstrous  a  doctrine 
uttered  from  the  mouth  of  a  respectable  man. 

I  suppose  most  of  us  (I  know  it  of  myself)  believe  that  the  people  of  the  South- 
ern States  are  entitled  to  a  Congressional  Fugitive  Slave  law — that  is  a  right  fixed  in 
(be  Constitution.  But  it  cannot  be  made  available  to  them  without  Congressional 
legislation.  In  the  Judge's  language,  it  is  a  "barren  right"  which  needs  legislation 
before  it  can  become  efficient  arid  valuable  to  the  persons  to  whom  it  is  guarantied. 
And  as  the  right  is  Constitutional  I  agree  that  the  legislation  shall  be  granted  to  it 
— -and  that  not  that  we  like  the  institution  of  slavery.  We  profess  to  have  no  taste  for 
running  and  catching  niggers — at  least  I  profess  no  taste  for  that  job  at  all.  Why 
then  do  I  yield  support  to  a  Fugitive  Slave  law?  Because  I  do  not  understand  that 
the  Constitution,  which  guaranties  that  right,  can  be  supported  without  it.  And 
if  I  believed  that  the  right  to  hold  a  slave  in  a  Territory  was  equally  fixed  in  the 
Constitution  with  the  right  to  reclaim  fugitives,  I  should  be  bound  to  give  it  the  leg- 
islation necessary  to  support  it.  I  say  that  no  man  can  deny  his  obligation  to  give 
the  necessary  legislation  to  support  slavery  in  a  Territory,  who  believes  it  is  a  Con- 
stitutional right  to  have  it  there.  No  man  can,  who  does  not  give  the  Abolitionists 
an  argument  to  deny  the  obligation  enjoined  by  the  Constitution  to  enact  a  Fugitive 
Slave  law.  Try  it  now.  It  is  the  strongest  Abolition  argument  ever  made.  1 
say  if  that  Dred  Scott  decision  is  correct,  then  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  a  Territory 
is  equally  a  Constitutional  right  with  the  right  of  a  slaveholder  to  have  his  runaway 
returned.  No  one  can  show  the  distinction  between  them.  The  one  is  express,  so 
that  we  cannot  deny  it.  The  other  is  construed  to  be  in  the  Constitution,  so  that  he 
who  believes  the  decision  to  be  correct  believes  in  the  right.  And  the  man  who 
argues  that  by  unfriendly  legislation,  in  spite  of  that  Constitutional  right,  slavery 
riKiy  be  driven  from  the  Territories,  cannot  avoid  furnishing  an  argument  by  which 
Abolitionists  may  deny  the  obligation  to  return  fugitives,  and  claim  the  power  to 
pass  laws  unfriendly  to  the  right  of  the  slaveholder  to  reclaim  his  fugitive.  I  do  not 
know  how  such  an  argument  may  strike  a  popular  assembly  like  this,  but  I  defy 
any  body  to  go  before  a  body  of  men  whose  minds  are  educated  to  estimating  evidence 
and  reasoning,  and  show  that  there  is  an  iota  of  difference  between  the  Constitutional 
right  to  reclaim  a  fugitive,  and  the  Constitutional  right  to  hold  a  slave,  in  a  Terri- 
tory, provided  this  Dred  Scott  decision  is  correct.  I  defy  any  man  to  make  an  argu- 
ment that  will  justify  unfriendly  legislation  to  deprive  a  slaveholder  of  his  right  to 
hoM  his  slave  in  a  Territory,  that  will  not  equally,  in  all  its  length,  breadth  and 
tiiickness,  furnish  an  argument  for  nullifying  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  Why,  there  is 
not  such  an  Abolitionist  in  the  nation  as  Douglas,  after  all. 


MR.  DOUGLAS'S  REPLY. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  concluded  his  remarks  by  saying  that  there  is  not  such  an  Abolition- 
ist as  I  am  in  all  America.  If  he  could  make  the  Abolitionists  of  Illinois  believe  that, 
he  would  not  have  much  show  for  the  Senate.  Let  him  make  the  Abolitionists  be- 
lieve the  truth  of  that  statement  and  his  political  back  is  broken. 


His  first  criticism  upon  me  is  the  expression  of  his  hope  that  tho  war  of  the  Ad- 
ministration will  be  prosecuted  against  me  and  the  Democratic  party  of  this  State 
with  vigor.  He  wants  that  war  prosecuted  with  vigor ;  I  have  no  doubt  of  it.  His 
hopes  of  success,  and  the  hopes  of  his  party  depend  solely  upon  it.  They  have  no 
chance  of  destroying  the  Democracy  of  this  State  except  by  the  aid  of  federal  pat- 
ronage. He  has  all  the  federal  office-holders  here  as  his  allies,  running  separate  tick- 
ets against  the  Democracy  to  divide  the  party,  although  the  leaders  all  intend  to  vote 
directly  the  Abolition  ticket,  and  only  leave  the  greenhorns  to  vote  this  separate 
ticket  who  refuse  to  go  into  the  Abolition  camp.  There  is  something  really  refresh- 
ing in  the  thought  that  Mr.  Lincoln  is  in  favor  of  prosecuting  one  war  vigorously. 
It  is  the  first  war  I  ever  knew  him  to  be  in  favor  of  prosecuting.  It  is  the  first 
war  that  I  ever  knew  him  to  believe  to  be  just  or  Constitutional.  When  the  Mex- 
ican war  was  being  waged,  and  the  American  army  was  surrounded  by  the  enemy  in 
Mexico,  he  thought  that  war  was  unconstitutional,  unnecessary,  and  unjust.  He  thought 
it  was  not  commenced  on  the  right  spot. 

When  I  made  an  incidental  allusion  of  that  kind  in  the  joint  discussion  over  at 
Charleston  some  weeks  ago,  Lincoln,  in  replying,  said  that  I,  Douglas,  had  charged 
him  with  voting  against  supplies  for  the  Mexican  war,  and  then  he  reared  up,  full 
length,  and  swore  that  he  never  voted  against  the  supplies — that  it  was  a  slander — • 
and  caught  hold  of  Ficklin,  who  sat  on  the  stand,  and  said,  "  Here,  Ficklin,  tell  the 
people  that  it  is  a  lie."  Well,  Ficklin,  who  had  served  in  Congress  with  him,  stood 
up  and  told  them  all  that  he  recollected  about  it.  It  was  that  when  George  Ash- 
mun,  of  Massachusetts,  brought  forward  a  resolution  declaring  the  war  unconstitu- 
tional, unnecessary,  and  unjust,  that  Lincoln  had  voted  for  it.  "Yes,"  said  Lincoln, 
"I  did."  Thus  he  confessed  that  he  voted  that  the  war  was  wrong,  that  our  country 
was  in  the  wrong,  and  consequently  that  the  Mexicans  were  in  the  right ;  but  charged 
that  I  had  slandered  him  by  saying  that  he  voted  against  the  supplies.  I  never 
charged  him  with  voting  against  the  supplies  in  my  life,  because  I  knew  that  he  was 
not  in  Congress  when  they  were  voted.  The  war  was  commenced  on  the  loth  day  of 
May,  1846,  and  on  that  day  we  appropriated  in  Congress  ten  millions  of  dollars  and 
fifty  thousand  men  to  prosecute  it.  During  the  same  session  we  voted  more  men 
and  more  money,  and  at  the  next  session  we  voted  more  men  and  more  money,  so 
that  by  the  time  Mr.  Lincoln  entered  Congress  we  hud  enough  men  and  enough 
money  to  carry  on  the  war,  and  had  no  occasion  to  vote  for  any  more.  When  he 
got  into  the  House,  being  opposed  to  the  war,  and  not  being  able  to  stop  the  supplies, 
because  they  had  all  gone  forward,  all  he  could  do  was  to  follow  the  lead  of  Corwin, 
and  prove  that  the  war  was  not  begun  on  the  right  spot,  and  that  it  was  unconstitu- 
tional, unnecessary,  and  wrong.  Remember,  too,  that  this  he  did  after  the  war  had 
been  begun.  It  is  one  thing  10  be  opposed,  to  the  declaration  of  a  war,  another  and  very 
different  thing  to  take  sides  with  the  enemy  against  your  own  country  after  the  war 
has  been  commenced.  Our  army  was  in  Mexico  at  the  time,  many  battles  had  been 
fought;  our  citizens,  who  were  defending  the  honor  of  their  country's' flag,  were  sur- 
rounded by  the  daggers,  the  guns  and  the  poison  of  the  enemy.  Then  it  was  that 
Corwin  made  his  speech  in  which  he  declared  that  the  American  soldiers  ought  to 
be  welcomed  by  the  Mexicans  with  bloody  hands  arid  hospitable  graves ;  then  it  was 
that  Ashmun  and  Lincoln  voted  in  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  war  was 
unconstitutional  and  unjust;  andAshrnun's  resolution,  Corwin's  speech,  and  Lincoln's 
vote,  were  sent  to  Mexico  and  read  at  the  head  of  the  Mexican  army,  to  prove  to 
them  that  there  was  a  Mexican  party  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  who  were 
doing  all  in  their  power  to  aid  them.  That  a  man  who  takes  sides  with  the  common 
enemy  against  his  own  country  in  time  of  war  should  rejoice  in  a  war  being  made 
on  me  now,  is  very  natural.  And  in  my  opinion,  no  other  kind  of  a  man  would  re- 
joice in  it. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  told  you  a  great  deal  to-day  about  his  being  an  old  line  Clay 
Whig.  Bear  in  mind  that  there  are  a  great  many  old  Clay  Whigs  down  in  this 
region.  It  is  more  agreeable,  therefore,  for  him  to  talk  about  the  old  Clay  Whig 


237 

party  than  it  is  for  him  to  talk  Abolitionism.  We  did  not  hear  much  about 
the  old  Clay  Whig  party  up  in  the  Abolition  districts.  How  much  of  an  old 
line  Henry  Clay  Whig  was  he?  Have  you  read  General  Singleton's  speech 
at  Jacksonville  ?  You  know  that  Gen.  Singleton  was,  for  twenty -five  years,  the  con- 
fidential friend  of  Heniy  Clay  in  Illinois,  and  he  testified  that  in  1847,  w,hen  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention  of  this  State  was  in  session,  the  Whig  members  were  invited 
to  a  Whig  caucus  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  brother-in-law,  where  Mr.  Lincoln 
proposed  to  throw  Henry  Clay  overboard  and  take  up  Gen.  Taylor  in  his  place, 
giving,  as  his  reason,  that  if  the  Whigs  did  not  take  up  Gen.  Taylor  the  Democrat? 
would.  Singleton  testifies  that  Lincoln,  in  that  speech,  urged,  as  another  reason  lor 
throwing  Henry  Clay  overboard,  that  the  Whigs  had  fought  long  enough  for  prin- 
ciple and  ought  to  begin  to  fight  for  success.  Singleton  also  testifies  that  Lincoln's 
speech  did  have  the  effect  of  cutting  Clay's  throat,  and  that  he  (Singleton)  and  others 
withdrew  from  fhe  caucus  in  indignation.  He  further  states  that  when  they  got  to 
Philadelphia  to  attend  the  National  Convention  of  the  Whig  party,  that  Lincoln  was 
there,  the  bitter  and  deadly  enemy  of  Clay,  and  that  he  tried  to  keep  him  (Singleton) 
out  of  the  Convention  because  he  insisted  on  voting  for  Clay,  and  Lincoln  was  de- 
termined to  have  Taylor.  Singleton  says  that  Lincoln  rejoiced  with  very  great  joy 
when  he  found  the  mangled  remains  of  the  murdered  Whig  statesman  lying  cold 
before  him.  Now,  Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you  that  he  is  an  old  line  Clay  Whig!  Gen. 
Singleton  testifies  to  the  facts  I  have  narrated,  in  a  public  speech  which  has  been 
printed  and  circulated  broadcast  over  the  State  for  weeks,  yet  not  a  lisp  have  we 
heard  from  Mr.  Lincoln  on  the  subject,  except  that  he  is  an  old  Clay  Whig. 

What  part  of  Henry  Clay's  policy  did  Lincoln  ever  advocate  ?  He  was  in  Con- 
gress in  1848—9,  when  the  Wilmot  proviso  warfare  disturbed  the  peace  and  harmony 
of  the  country,  until  it  shook  the  foundation  of  the  Republic  from  its  center  to  ite 
circumference.  It  was  that  agitation  that  brought  Clay  forth  from  his  retirement 
at  Ashland  again  to  occupy  his  seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  to  see 
if  he  could  not,  by  his  great  wisdom  and  experience,  and  the  renown  of  his  name, 
do  something  to  restore  peace  and  quiet  to  a  disturbed  country.  Who  got  up  that 
sectional  strife  that  Clay  had  to  be  called  upon  to  quell?  I  have  heard  Lincoln  boast 
that  he  voted  forty-two  times  for  the  Wilmot  proviso,  and  that  he  would  have  voted 
as  many  times  more  if  he  could.  Lincoln  is  the  man,  in  connection  with  Seward, 
Chase,  Giddings,  and  other  Abolitionists,  who  got  up  that  strife  that  I  helped  Clay 
to  put  down.  Henry  Clay  came  back  to  the  Senate  in  1849,  and  saw  that  he  must  do 
something  to  restore  peace  to  the  country.  The  Union  Whigs  and  the  Union  Dem- 
ocrats welcomed  him  the  moment  he  arrived,  as  the  man  for  the  occasion.  We  believed 
that  he,  of  all  men  on  earth,  had  been  preserved  by  Divine  Providence  to  guide  us 
out  of  our  difficulties,  and  we  Democrats  rallied  under  Clay  then,  as  you  Whigs  in 
.  nullification  time  rallied  under  the  banner  of  old  Jackson,  forgetting  party  when  the 
country  was  in  danger,  in  order  that  we  might  have  a  country  first,  and  parties  after- 
ward. 

And  this  reminds  me  that  Mr.  Lincoln  told  you  that  the  slavery  question  was  the 
only  thing  that  ever  disturbed  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Union.  Did  not  nulli- 
fication once  raise  its  head  and  disturb  the  peace  of  this  Union  in  1832  ?  Was  that 
the  slavery  question,  Mr.  Lincoln  ?  Did  not  disunion  raise  its  monster  head  during 
the  last  war  with  Great  Britain  ?  Was  that  the  slavery  question,  Mr.  Lincoln  ?  The 
peace  of  this  country  has  been  disturbed  three  times,  once  during  the  war  with  Great 
Britain,  once  on  the  tariff  question,  and  once  on  the  slavery  question.  His  argument, 
therefore,  that  slavery  is  the  only  question  that  has  ever  created  dissension  in  the 
Union  falls  to  the  ground.  It  is  true  that  agitators  are  enabled  now  to  use  this 
slavery  question  for  the  purpose  of  sectional  strife.  He  admits  that  in  regard  to  all 
things  else,  the  principle  that  I  advocate,  making  each  State  and  Territory  free  to  de- 
cide for  itself,  ought  to  prevail.  He  instances  the  cranberry  laws,  and  the  oyster 
laws,  and  he  might  have  gone  through  the  whole  list  with  the  same  effect.  I  say 
that  all  these  laws  are  local  and  domestic,  and  that  local  and  domestic  concerns  should 
16 


238 

be  left  to  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  manage  for  itself.  If  agitators  would  ac- 
quiesce in  that  principle,  there  never  would  be  any  danger  to  the  peace  and  harmony 
of  the  Union. 

Mr.  Lincoln  tries  to  avoid  the  main  issue  by  attacking  the  truth  of  my  proposition, 
that  our  fathers  made  this  Government  divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  recogniz- 
ing the  right  of  each  to  decide  all  its  local  questions  for  itself.  Did  they  not  thus 
make  it  ?  It  is  true  that  they  did  not  establish  slavery  in  any  of  the  States,  or  abol- 
ish it  in  any  of  them ;  but  finding  thirteen  States,  twelve  of  which  were  slave  and 
one  free,  they  agreed  to  form  a  government  uniting  them  together,  as  they  stood  di- 
vided into  free  and  slave  States,  and  to  guaranty  forever  to  each  State  the  right  to 
do  as  it  pleased  on  the  slavery  question.  Having  thus  made  the  government,  and 
conferred  this  right  upon  each  State  forever,  I  assert  that  this  Government  can  exist 
as  they  made  it,  divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  if  any  one  State  chooses  to  retain 
slavery.  He  says  that  he  looks  forward  to  a  time  when  slavery  shall  be  abolished 
every  where.  I  look  forward  to  a  time  when  each  State  shall  be  allowed  to  do  as  it 
pleases.  If  it  chooses  to  keep  slavery  forever,  it  is  not  my  business,  but  its  own  ;  if 
it  chooses  to  abolish  slavery,  it  is  its  own  business — not  mine.  I  care  more  for  the 
great  principle  of  self-government,  the  right  of  the  people  to  rule,  than  I  do  for  all 
the  negroes  in  Christendom.  I  would  not  endanger  the  perpetuity  of  this  Union,  I 
would  not  blot  out  the  great  inalienable  rights  of  the  white  men  for  all  the  negroes 
that  ever  existed.  Hence,  I  say,  let  us  maintain  this  Government  on  the  principles 
that  our  fathers  made  it,  recognizing  the  right  of  each  State  to  keep  slavery  as  long 
as  its  people  determine,  or  to  abolish  it  when  they  please.  But  Mr.  Lincoln  says 
tiiat  when  our  fathers  made  this  Government  they  did  not  look  forward  to  the  state 
of  things  now  existing,  and  therefore  he  thinks  the  doctrine  was  wrong ;  and 
he  quotes  Brooks,  of  South  Carolina,  to  prove  that  our  fathers  then  thought  that  prob- 
ably slavery  would  be  abolished  by  each  State  acting  for  itself  before  this  time. 
Suppose  they  did;  suppose  they  did  not  foresee  what  has  occurred, — does  that  change  the 
principles  of  our  Government  ?  They  did  not  probably  foresee  the  telegraph  that  trans- 
mits intelligence  by  lightning,  nor  did  they  foresee  the  railroads  that  now  form  the 
bonds  of  union  between  the  different  States,  or  the  thousand  mechanical  inventions 
that  have  elevated  mankind.  But  do  these  things  change  the  principles  of  the  Gov- 
ernment ?  Our  fathers,  I  say,  made  this  Government  on  the  principle  of  the  right 
of  each  State  to  do  as  it  pleases  in  its  own  domestic  affairs,  subject  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  allowed  the  people  of  each  to  apply  to  every  new  change  of  circum- 
stances such  remedy  as  they  may  see  fit  to  improve  their  condition.  This  right  they 
have  for  all  time  to  come. 

Mr.  Lincoln  went  on  to  tell  you  that  he  does  not  at  all  desire  to  interfere  with 
slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists,  nor  does  his  party.  I  expected  him  to  say  that 
down  here.  Let  me  ask  him  then  how  he  expects  to  put  slavery  in  the  course  of 
ultimate  extinction  every  where,  if  he  does  not  intend  to  interfere  with  it  in  the  States 
where  it  exists  ?  He  says  that  he  will  prohibit  it  in  all  Territories,  and  the  infer- 
ence is,  then,  that  unless  they  make  free  States  out  of  them  he  will  keep  them  out  of  the 
Union  ;  for,  mark  you,  he  did  not  say  whether  or  not  he  would  vote  to  admit  Kan- 
sas with  slavery  or  not,  as  her  people  might  apply  (he  forgot  that  as  usual,  etc.)  ; 
he  did  not  say  whether  or  not  he  was  in  favor  of  bringing  the  Territories  now  in  ex- 
istence into  the  Union  on  the  principle  of  Clay's  Compromise  measures  on  the  slavery 
question.  I  told  you  that  he  would  not.  His  idea  is  that  he  will  prohibit  slavery 
in  all  the  Territories  and  thus  force  them  all  to  become  free  States,  surrounding  the 
slave  States  with  a  cordon  of  free  States  and  hemming  them  in,  keeping  the  slaves 
confined  to  their  present  limits  whilst  they  go  on  multiplying  until  the  soil  on  which 
they  live  will  no  longer  feed  them,  and  he  will  thus  be  able  to  put  slavery 
in  a  course  of  ultimate  extinction  by  starvation.  He  will  extinguish  slavery  in  the 
Southern  States  as  the  French  general  exterminated  the  Algerines  when  he  smoked 
them  out.  He  is  going  to  extinguish  slavery  by  surrounding  the  slave  States,  hem- 
ming in  the  slaves  and  starving  them  out  of  existence,  as  you  smoke  a  fox  out  of  his 


239 

hole.  He  intends  to  do  that  in  the  name  of  humanity  and  Christianity,  in  order  that 
we  may  get  rid  of  the  terrible  crime  and  sin  entailed  upon  our  fathers  of  holding 
slaves.  Mr.  Lincoln  makes  out  that  line  of  policy,  and  appeals  to  the  moral  sense 
of  justice  and  to  the  Christian  feeling  of  the  community  to  sustain  him.  He  says 
that  any  man  who  holds  to  the  contrary  doctrine  is  in  the  position  of  the  king  who 
claimed  to  govern  by  Divine  right  Let  us  examine  fora  moment  and  see  what  principle 
it  was  that  overthrew  the  Divine  right  of  George  the  Third  to  govern  us.  Did  not 
these  colonies  rebel  because  the  British  parliament  had  no  right  to  pass  laws  con- 
cerning our  property  and  domestic  and  private  institutions  without  our  consent  ?  We 
demanded  that  the  British  Government  should  not  pass  such  laws  unless  they  gave  us 
representation  in  the  body  passing  them, — and  this  the  British  government  insisting 
on  doing, — we  went  to  war,  on  the  principle  that  the  Home  Government  should  not 
control  and  govern  distant  colonies  without  giving  them  a  representation.  Now,  Mr. 
Lincoln  proposes  to  govern  the  Territories  without  giving  them  a  representation,  and 
calls  on  Congress  to  pass  laws  controlling  their  property  and  domestic  concerns  with- 
out their  consent  and  against  their  will.  Thus,  he  asserts  for  his  party  the  identical 
principle  asserted  by  George  III.  and  the  Tories  of  the  Revolution. 

I  ask  you  to  look  into  these  things,  and  then  tell  me  whether  the  Democracy  or 
the  Abolitionists  are  right.  I  hold  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a 
State  (I  use  the  language  of  Mr.  Buchanan  in  his  letter  of  acceptance),  have  the 
right  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their 
limits.  The  point  upon  which  Chief  Justice  Taney  expresses  his  opinion  is  simply 
this,  that  slaves  being  property,  stand  on  an  equal  footing  with  other  property,  and  con- 
sequently that  the  owner  has  the  same  right  to  carry  that  property  into  a  Territory 
that  he  has  any  other,  subject  to  the  same  conditions.  Suppose  that  one  of  your 
merchants  was  to  take  fifty  or  one  hundred  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  liquors  to  Kan- 
sas. He  has  a  right  to  go  there  under  that  decision,  but  when  he  gets  there  he  finds 
the  Maine  liquor  law  in  force,  and  what  can  he  do  with  his  property  after  he  gets  it 
there  ?  He  cannot  sell  it,  he  cannot  use  it,  it  is  subject  to  the  local  law,  and  that  law 
is  against  him,  and  the  best  thing  he  can  do  with  it  is  to  bring  it  back  into  Missouri 
or  Illinois  and  sell  it.  If  you  take  negroes  to  Kansas,  as  Col.  Jeff.  Davis  said  in  his 
Bangor  speech,  from  which  I  have  quoted  to-day,  you  must  take  them  there  subject 
to  the  local  law.  If  the  people  want  the  institution  of  slavery  they  will  protect  and 
encourage  it ;  but  if  they  do  not  want  it  they  will  withhold  that  protection,  and  the 
absence  of  local  legislation  protecting  slavery  excludes  it  as  completely  as  a  positive 
prohibition.  You  slaveholders  of  Missouri  might  as  well  understand  what  you  know 
practically,  that  you  cannot  carry  slavery  where  the  people  do  not  want  it.  All  you 
have  a  right  to  ask  is  that  the  people  shall  do  as  they  please  ;  if  they  want  slavery 
let  them  have  it ;  if  they  do  not  want  it,  allow  them  to  refuse  to  encourage  it. 

My  friends,  if,  as  I  have  said  before,  we  will  only  live  up  to  this  great  fundamental 
principle,  there  will  be  peace  between  the  North  and  the  South.  Mr.  Lincoln  admits 
that  under  the  Constitution  on  all  domestic  questions,  except  slavery,  we  ought  not  to 
interfere  with  the  people  of  each  State.  What  right  have  we  to  interfere  with 
slavery  any  more  than  we  have  to  interfere  with  any  other  question  ?  He  says  that 
this  slavery  question  is  now  the  bone  of  contention.  Why  ?  Simply  because  agita- 
tors have  combined  in  all  the  free  States  to  make  war  upon  it.  Suppose  the  agitators 
in  the  States  should  combine  in  one-half  of  the  Union  to  make  war  upon  the  rail- 
road system  of  the  other  half?  They  would  thus  be  driven  to  the  same  sectional 
strife.  Suppose  one  section  makes  war  upon  any  other  peculiar  institution  of  the 
opposite  section,  and  the  same  strife  is  produced.  The  only  remedy  and  safety  is 
that  we  shall  stand  by  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  obey  the  laws  as  they 
are  passed,  while  they  stand  the  proper  test  and  sustain  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  and  the  constituted  authorities. 


240 


SPEECH  OF  HON.  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN, 

At  Columbus,  Ohio,  September,  1859. 


FELLOW-CITIZENS  OP  THE  STATE  OF  OHIO:  I  cannot  fail  to  remember  that  I 
appear  for  the  first  time  before  an  audience  in  this  now  great  State — an  audience 
that  is  accustomed  to  hear  such  speakers  as  Corwin,  and  Chase,  and  Wade,  and 
many  other  renowned  men  ;  and,  remembering  this,  I  feel  that  it  will  be  well  for  you, 
as  for  me,  that  you  should  not  raise  your  expectations  to  that  standard  to  which  you 
would  have  been  justified  in  raising  them  had  one  of  these  distinguished  men  ap- 
peared before  you.  You  would  perhaps  be  only  preparing  a  disappointment  for 
yourselves,  and,  as  a  consequence  of  your  disappointment,  mortification  to  me.  I 
hope,  therefore,  that  you  will  commence  with  very  moderate  expectations ;  and  per- 
haps, if  you  will  give  me  your  attention,  I  shall  be  able  to  interest  you  to  a  moderate  de- 
gree. 

Appearing  here  for  the  first  time  in  my  life,  I  have  been  somewhat  embarrassed 
for  a  topic  by  way  of  introduction  to  my  speech  ;  but  I  have  been  relieved  from  that 
embarrassment  by  an  introduction  which  the  Ohio  Statesman  newspaper  gave  me 
this  morning.  In  this  paper  I  have  read  an  article,  in  which,  among  other  state- 
ments, I  find  the  following  : 

"  In  debating  with  Senator  Douglas  during  the  memorable  contest  of  last  fall,  Mr. 
Lincoln  declared  in  favor  of  negro  suffrage,  and  attempted  to  defend  that  vile  concep- 
tion against  the  Little  Giant." 

I  mention  this  now,  at  the  opening  of  my  remarks,  for  the  purpose  of  making 
three  comments  upon  it.  The  first  I  have  already  announced — it  furnishes  me  an  in- 
troductory topic ;  the  second  is  to  show  that  the  gentleman  is  mistaken ;  thirdly,  to 
give  him  an  opportunity  to  correct  it. 

In  the  first  place,  in  regard  to  this  matter  being  a  mistake.  I  have  found  that  it 
is  not  entirely  safe,  when  one  is  misrepresented  under  his  very  nose,  to  allow  the 
misrepresentation  to  go  uncontradicted.  I  therefore  propose,  here  at  the  outset,  not 
only  to  say  that  this  is  a  misrepresentation,  but  to  show  conclusively  that  it  is  so ;  and 
you  will  bear  with  me  while  I  read  a  couple  of  extracts  from  that  very  "  memora- 
ble" debate  with  Judge  Douglas  last  year,  to  which  this  newspaper  refers.  In  the 
first  pitched  battle  which  Senator  Douglas  and  myself  had,  at  the  town  of  Ottawa,  I 
,used  the  language  which  I  will  now  read.  Having  been  previously  reading  an  ex- 
tract, I  continued  as  follows : 

"  Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any  greater  length,  but  this  is  the  true 
complexion  of  all  I  have  ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  and  the 
b]ack  race.  This  is  the  whole  of  it,  and  any  thing  that  argues  me  intp  his  idea  of 
^perfect  social  and  political  equality  with  the  negro,  is  but  a  specious  and  fantastic  ar- 
rangement of  words,  by  which  a  man  can  prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut  horse. 
I  will  say  here,  while  upon  this  subject,  that  I  have  no  purpose  directly  or  indirectly 
to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I 
have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so.  I  have  no  purpose 
to  introduce  political  and  social  equality  between  the  white  and  the  black  races. 
There  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  two  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably 
forbid  their  ever  living  together  upon  the  footing  of  perfect  equality,  and  inasmuch  as 
it  becomes  a  necessity  that  there  must  be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas, 
am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which  I  belong  having  the  superior  position.  I  have 
never  said  any  thing  to  the  contrary,  but  I  hold  that,  notwithstanding  all  this,  there  is 
no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  negro  is  not  entitled  to  all  the  natural  rights  enumer- 


241 

ated  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness.  I  hold  that  he  is  as  much  entitled  to  these  as  the  white  man.  I  agree 
with  Judge  Douglas,  he  is  not  my  equal  in  many  respects — certainly  not  in  color, 
perhaps  not  in  moral  or  intellectual  endowments.  But  in  the  right  to  'eat  the  bread, 
without  leave  of  any  body  else,  which  his  own  hand  earns,  he  is  my  equal,  and  th* 
equal  of  Judge  Douglas,  and  the  equal  of  every  living  man" 

Upon  a  subsequent  occasion,  when  the  reason  for  making  a  statement  like  this  re- 
curred. I  said : 

"  While  I  was  at  the  hotel  to-day  an  elderly  gentleman  called  upon  me  to  kn<^w 
whether  I  was  really  in  favor  of  producing  perfect  equality  between  the  negroes  and 
white  people.  While  I  had  not  proposed  to  myself  on  this  occasion  to  say  much  on 
that  subject,  yet  as  the  question  was  asked  me  I  thought  I  would  occupy  perhaps  five 
minutes  in  saying  something  in.  regard  to  it.  I  will  say  then,  that  I  am  not  nor  ever 
have  been  in  favor  of  bringing  about  in  any  way  the  social  and  political  equality  of 
the  white  and  black  races — that  I  am  not  or  ever  have  been  in  favor  of  making 
voters  or  jurors  of  negroes,  nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold  office,  or  intermarry  with 
the  white  people ;  and  I  will  say  in  addition  to  this  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  be- 
tween the  white  and  black  races  which  I  believe  will  forever  forbid  the  two  races  living 
together  on  terms  of  social  and  political  equality.  And  inasmuch  as  they  cannot 
so  live,  while  they  do  remain  together  there  must  be  the  position  of  superior  and  in- 
ferior, and  I,  as  much  as  any  other  man,  am  in  favor  of  having  the  superior  position 
assigned  to  the  white  race.  I  say  upon  this  occasion  I  do  not  perceive  that  because 
the  white  man  is  to  have  the  superior  position,  the  negro  should  be  denied  every  thing. 
I  do  not  understand  that  because  I  do  not  want  a  negro  woman  for  a  slave,  I  must 
necessarily  want  her  for  a  wife.  My  understanding  is  that  I  can  just  let  her  alone. 
I  am  now  in  my  fiftieth  year,  and  I  certainly  never  have  had  a  black  woman  for 
either  a  slave  or  a  wife.  So  it  seems  to  me  quite  possible  for  us  to  get  along  without 
making  either  slaves  or  wives  of  negroes.  I  will  add  to  this  that  I  have  never  seen  to  my 
knowledge  a  man,  woman  or  child,  who  was  in  favor  of  producing  perfect  equality, 
social  and  political,  between  negroes  and  white  men.  I  recollect  of  but  one  distin- 
guished instance  that  I  ever  heard  of  so  frequently  as  to  be  satisfied  of  its  correctness 
— and  that  is  the  case  of  Judge  Douglas's  old  friend.  Col.  Richard  M.  Johnson.  I 
will  also  add  to  the  remarks  I  have  made  (for  I  am  not  goinjr  to  enter  at  large  upon 
this  subject),  that  I  have  never  had  the  least  apprehension  that  I  or  my  friends  would 
marry  negroes,  if  there  was  no  law  to  keep  them  from  it ;  but  as  Judge  Douglas  and 
his  friends  seem  to  be  in  great  apprehension  that  they  might,  if  there  were  no  law  to 
keep  them  from  it,  I  give  him  the  most  solemn  pledge  that  I  will  to  the  very  last 
&tand  by  the  law  of  the  State,  which  forbids  the  marrying  of  white  people  with  ne- 
groes." 

There,  my  friends,  you  have  briefly  what  I  have,  upon  former  occasions,  said  upon 
the  subject  to  which  this  newspaper,  to  the  extent  of  its  ability,  has  drawn  the  public 
attention.  In  it  you  not  only  perceive,  as  a  probability,  that  in  that  contest  I  did  not 
at  any  time  say  I  was  in  favor  of  negro  suffrage ;  but  the  absolute  proof  that  twice — 
once  substantially  and  once  expressly — I  declared  against  it.  Having  shown  you 
this,  there  remains  but  a  word  of  comment  upon  that  newspaper  article.  It  is 
this :  that  I  presume  the  editor  of  that  paper  is  an  honest  and  truth-loving  man,  and 
that  he  will  be  greatly  obliged  to  me  for  furnishing  him  thus  early  an  opportunity 
to  correct  the  misrepresentation  he  has  made,  before  it  has  run  so  long  that  malicious 
people  can  call  him  a  liar. 

The  Giant  himself  has  been  here  recently.  I  have  seen  a  brief  report  of  his 
speech.  If  it  were  otherwise  unpleasant  to  me  to  introduce  the  subject  of  the  negro 
as  a  topic  for  discussion,  I  might  be  somewhat  relieved  by  the  fact  that  he  dealt  ex- 
clusively in  that  subject  while  he  was  here.  I  shall,  therefore,  without  much  hesita- 
tion or  diffidence,  enter  upon  this  subject 

The  American  people,  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1854,  found  the  African  slave- 
trade  prohibited  by  a  law  of  Congress.  In  a  majority  of  the  States  of  this  Union, 


242 

they  found  African  slavery,  or  any  other  sort  of  slavery,  prohibited  ly  State  Consti 
tutions.  They  also  found  a  law  existing,  supposed  to  be  valid,  by  which  slavery  was 
excluded  from  almost  all  the  territory  the  United  States  then  owned.  This  was  the 
condition  of  the  country,  with  reference  to  the  institution  of  slavery,  on  the  first  of  Janu- 
ary, 1854.  A  few  days  after  that,  a  bill  was  introduced  into  Congress,  which  ran  through 
its  regular  course  in  the  two  branches  of  the  National  Legislature,  and  finally  passed 
into  a  law  in  the  month  of  May,  by  which  the  act  of  Congress  prohibiting  slavery 
from  going  into  the  Territories  of  the  United  States  was  repealed.  In  connection 
with  the  law  itself,  and,  in  fact,  in  the  terms  of  the  law,  the  then  existing  prohibition 
was  not  only  repealed,  but  there  was  a  declaration  of  a  purpose  on  the  part  of  Con- 
gress never  thereafter  to  exercise  any  power  that  they  might  have,  real  or  supposed, 
to  prohibit  the  extension  or  spread  of  slavery.  This  was  a  very  great  change ;  for 
the  Inw  thus  repealed  was  of  more  than  thirty  years'  standing.  Following  rapidly 
upon  the  heels  of  this  action  of  Congress,  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  made, 
by  which  it  is  declared  that  Congress,  if  it  desires  to  prohibit  the  spread  of  slavery 
into  the  Territories,  has  no  Constitutional  power  to  do  so.  Not  only  so,  but  that  de- 
cision lays  down  principles,  which,  if  pushed  to  their  logical  conclusion — I  say  pushed 
to  their  logical  conclusion — would  decide  that  the  Constitutions  of  free  States,  for- 
bidding slavery,  are  themselves  unconstitutional.  Mark  me,  I  do  not  say  the  Judge 
said  this,  and  let  no  man  say  I  affirm  the  Judge  used  these  words ;  but  I  only  say  it 
is  my  opinion  that  what  they  did  say,  if  pressed  to  its  logical  conclusion,  will  inevita- 
bly result  thus. 

Looking  at  these  things,  the  Republican  party,  as  I  understand  its  principles  and 
policy,  believe  that  there  is  great  danger  of  the  institution  of  slavery  being  spread 
out  and  extended,  until  it  is  ultimately  made  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States  of  this 
Union ;  so  believing,  to  prevent  that  incidental  and  ultimate  consummation,  is  the 
original  and  chief  purpose  of  the  Republican  organization.  I  say  "  chief  purpose  " 
of  the  Republican  organization  ;  for  it  is  certainly  true  that  if  the  National  House 
shall  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  Republicans,  they  will  have  to  attend  to  all  the  other 
matters  of  National  House-keeping,  as  well  as  this.  The  chief  and  real  purpose  of 
the  Republican  party  is  eminently  conservative.  It  proposes  nothing  save  and  ex- 
cept to  restore  this  Government  to  its  original  tone  in  regard  to  this  element  of  slavery, 
and  there  to  maintain  it,  looking  for  no  further  change  in  reference  to  it,  than  that 
which  the  original  framers  of  the  Government  themselves  expected  and  looked  for- 
ward to. 

The  chief  danger  to  this  purpose  of  the  Republican  party  is  not  just  now  the  re- 
vival of  the  African  slave-trade,  or  the  passage  of  a  Congressional  slave  code,  or  the 
declaring  of  a  second  Dred  Scott  decision,  making  slavery  lawful  in  all  the  States. 
These  are  not  pressing  us  just  now.  They  are  not  quite  ready  yet.  The  authors  of 
these  measures  know  that  we  are  too  strong  for  them ;  but  they  will  be  upon  us  in 
due  time,  and  we  will  be  grappling  with  them  hand  to  hand,  if  they  are  not  now 
headed  oif.  They  are  not  now  the  chief  danger  to  the  purpose  of  the  Republican 
organization  ;  but  the  most  imminent  danger  that  now  threatens  that  purpose  is  thai 
insidious  Douglas  Popular  Sovereignty.  This  is  the  miner  and  sapper.  While  it 
does  not  propose  to  revive  the  African  slave-trade,  nor  to  pass  a  slave  code,  nor  to 
make  a  second  Dred  Scott  decision,  it  is  preparing  us  for  the  onslaught  and  charge 
of  these  ultimate  enemies  when  they  shall  be  ready  to  come  on  and  the  word  of  com- 
mand for  them  to  advance  shall  be  given.  I  say  this  Douglas  Popular  Sovereignty 
—•for  there  is  a  broad  distinction,  as  I  now  understand  it,  between  that  article  and  a 
genuine  Popular  Sovereignty. 

I  believe  there  is  a  genuine  popular  sovereignty.  I  think  a  definition  of  genuine 
popular  sovereignty,  in  the  abstract,  would  be  about  this :  That  each  man  shall  do  pre- 
cisely as  he  pleases  with  himself,  and  with  all  those  things  which  exclusively  concern 
him.  Applied  to  Government,  this  principle  would  be,  that  a  General  Government 
shall  do  all  those  things  which  pertain  to  it,  and  all  the  local  Governments  shall  do 
precisely  as  they  please  in  respect  to  those  matters  which  exclusively  concern  them. 


243 

I  understand  that  this  Government  of  the  United  States,  under  which  we  live,  is 
based  upon  this  principle ;  and  I  am  misunderstood  if  it  is  supposed  that  I  have  any 
war  to  make  upon  that  principle. 

Now,  what  is  Judge  Douglas's  Popular  Sovereignty?  It  is,  as  a  principle,  no 
other  than  that,  if  one  man  chooses  to  make  a  slave  of  another  marr.,  neither  that 
other  man  nor  any  body  else  has  a  right  to  object.  Applied  in  Government,  as  he 
seeks  to  apply  it,  it  is  this :  If,  in  a  new  Territory  into  which  a  few  people  are  begin- 
ning to  enter  for  the  purpose  of  making  their  homes,  they  choose  to  either  exclude 
slavery  from  their  limits,  or  to  establish  it  there,  however  one  or  the  other  may  affect 
the  persons  to  be  enslaved,  or  the  infinitely  greater  number  of  persons  who  are  after- 
ward to  inhabit  that  Territory,  or  the  other  members  of  the  families  of  communities, 
of  which  they  are  but  an  incipient  member,  or  the  general  head  of  the  family  of 
State*  as  parent  of  all — however  their  action  may  affect  one  or  the  other  of  these, 
there  is  no  power  or  right  to  interfere.  That  is  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty  ap- 
plied. 

He  has  a  good  deal  of  trouble  with  popular  sovereignty.  His  explanations  ex- 
planatory of  explanations  explained  are  interminable.  The  most  lengthy,  and,  as  I 
suppose,  the  most  maturely  considered  of  his  long  series  of  explanations,  is  his  great 
essay  in  Harper's  Magazine.  I  will  not  attempt  to  enter  on  any  very  thorough  in- 
vestigation of  his  argument,  as  there  made  and  presented.  I  will  nevertheless  occupy 
a  good  portion  of  your  time  here  in  drawing  your  attention  to  certain  points  in  it. 
Such  of  you  as  may  have  read  this  document  will  have  perceived  that  the  Judge, 
early  in  the  document,  quotes  from  two  persons  as  belonging  to  the  Republican  party, 
without  naming  them,  but  who  can  readily  be  recognized  as  being  Gov.  Seward  of 
New  York  and  myself.  It  is  true,  that  exactly  fifteen  months  ago  this  day,  I  believe,  I 
for  the  first  time  expressed  a  sentiment  upon  this  subject,  and  in  such  a  manner  that  it 
should  get  into  print,  that  the  public  might  see  it  beyond  the  circle  of  my  hearers ; 
and  my  expression  of  it  at  that  time  is  the  quotation  that  Judge  Douglas  makes. 
He  has  not  made  the  quotation  with  accuracy,  but  justice  to  him  requires  me  to  say 
that  it  is  sufficiently  accurate  not  to  change  its  sense. 

The  sense  of  that  quotation  condensed  is  this — that  this  slavery  element  is  a  dur- 
able element  of  discord  among  us,  and  that  we  shall  probably  not  have  perfect  peace  in 
this  country  with  it  until  it  either  masters  the  free  principle  in  our  Government,  or 
is  so  far  mastered  by  the  free  principle  as  for  the  public  mind  to  rest  in  the  belief 
that  it  is  going  to  its  end.  This  sentiment,  which  I  now  express  in  this  way,  was,  at 
no  great  distance  of  time,  perhaps  in  different  language,  and  in  connection  with  some 
collateral  ideas,  expressed  by  Gov.  Seward.  Judge  Douglas  has  been  so  much  an- 
noyed by  the  expression  of  that  sentiment  that  he  has  constantly,  I  believe,  in  almost 
all  his  speeches  since  it  was  uttered,  been  referring  to  it.  I  find  he  alluded  to  it  in 
his  speech  here,  as  well  as  in  the  copy-right  essay.  I  do  not  now  enter  upon  thig 
for  the  purpose  of  making  an  elaborate  argument  to  show  that  we  were  right  in  the 
expression  of  that  sentiment.  In  other  words,  I  shall  not  stop  to  say  all  that  might 
properly  be  said  upon  this  point;  but  I  only  ask  your  attention  to  it  for  the  purpose 
of  making  one  or  two  point  upon  it. 

If  you  will  read  the  copy-right  essay,  you  will  discover  that  Judge  Douglas  him- 
self says  a  controversy  between  the  American  Colonies  and  the  Government  of  Great 
Britain  began  on  the  slavery  question  in  1699,  and  continued  from  that  time  until 
tie  Revolution;  and,  while  he  did  not  say  so,  we  all  know  that  it  has  continued  with 
more  or  less  violence  ever  since  the  Revolution. 

Then  we  need  not  appeal  to  history,  to  the  declarations  of  the  framers  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, but  we  know  from  Judge  Douglas  himself  that  slavery  began  to  be  an  ele- 
ment of  discord  among  the  white  people  of  this  country  as  far  back  as  1699,  or  one 
hundred  and  sixty  years  ago,  or  five  generations  of  men — counting  thirty  years  to  a 
generation.  Now  it  would  seem  to  me  that  it  might  have  occurred  to  Judge  Douglas, 
or  any  body  who  had  turned  his  attention  to  these  facts,  that  there  was  something  in 
the  nature  of  that  thing,  slavery,  somewhat  durable  for  mischief  and  discord. 


244 

There  is  another  point  I  desire  to  make  in  regard  to  this  matter,  before  I  leave 
it  From  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  down  to  1820  is  the  precise  period  of  our 
history  when  we  had  comparative  peace  upon  this  question — the  precise  period  of 
time  when  we  came  nearer  to  having  peace  about  it  than  any  other  time  of  that 
entire  one  hundred  and  sixty  years,  in  which  he  says  it  began,  or  of  the  eighty  years 
of  our  own  Constitution.  Then  it  would  be  worth  our  while  to  stop  and  examine 
into  the  probable  reason  of  our  coming  nearer  to  having  peace  then  than  at  any  other 
time.  This  was  the  precise  period  of  time  in  which  our  fathers  adopted,  and  during 
which  they  followed,  a  policy  restricting  the  spread  of  slavery,  and  the  whole  Union 
was  acquiescing  in  it.  The  whole  country  looked  forward  to  the  ultimate  extinction 
of  the  institution.  It  was  when  a  policy  had  been  adopted  and  was  prevailing,  which 
led  all  just  and  right-minded  men  to  suppose  that  slavery  was  gradually  corning  to 
an  end,  and  that  they  might  be  quiet  about  it,  watching  it  as  it  expired.  I  think 
Judge  Douglas  might  have  perceived  that  too,  and  whether  he  did  or  not,  it  is  worth 
the  attention  of  fair-minded  men,  here  and  elsewhere,  to  consider  whether  that  is  not 
the  truth  of  the  case.  If  he  had  looked  at  these  two  facts,  that  this  matter  has  been 
an  element  of  discord  for  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  among  this  people,  and  that 
the  only  comparative  peace  we  have  had  about  it  was  when  that  policy  prevailed  in 
this  Government,  which  he  now  wars  upon,  he  might  then,  perhaps,  have  been 
brought  to  a  more  just  appreciation  of  what  I  said  fifteen  months  ago — that  "  a 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I  believe  that  this  Government  cannot 
endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall.  I 
do  not  expect  the  Union  to  dissolve ;  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It 
will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will 
arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  will  rest  in  the 
belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction ;  or  its  advocates  will  push  it 
forward,  until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  north 
as  well  as  south."  That  was  my  sentiment  at  that  time.  In  connection  with  it,  I 
said,  "  we  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year,  since  a  policy  was  inaugurated  with  the 
avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation.  Under 
the  operation  of  the  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly 
augmented."  I  now  say  to  you  here  that  we  are  advanced  still  farther  into  the 
sixth  year  since  that  policy  of  Judge  Douglas — that  Popular  Sovereignty  of  his,  for 
quieting  the  slavery  question — was  made  the  national  policy.  Fifteen  months  more 
have  been  added  since  I  uttered  that  sentiment,  and  I  call  upon  you,  and  all  other 
right-minded  men,  to  say  whether  that  fifteen  months  have  belied  or  corroborated  my 
words. 

While  I  am  here  upon  this  subject,  I  cannot  but  express  gratitude  that  this  true 
view  of  this  element  of  discord  among  us — as  I  believe  it  is — is  attracting  more  and 
more  attention.  I  do  not  believe  that  Gov.  Seward  uttered  that  sentiment  because 
I  had  done  so  before,  but  because  he  reflected  upon  this  subject  and  saw  the  truth 
of  it.  Nor  do  I  believe,  because  Gov.  Seward  or  I  uttered  it,  that  Mr.  Hickman 
of  Pennsylvania,  in  different  language,  since  that  time,  has  declared  his  belief  in  the 
utter  antagonism  which  exists  between  the  principles  of  liberty  and  slavery.  You 
se<?  we  are  multiplying.  Now,  while  I  am  speaking  of  Hickman,  let  me  say,  I  know 
but  little  about  him.  I  have  never  seen  him,  and  know  scarcely  any  thing  about  the 
man  ;  but  I  will  say  this  much  of  him :  Of  all  the  anti-Lecompton  Democracy  that 
have  been  brought  to  my  notice,  he  alone  has  the  true,  genuine  ring  of  the  metal. 
And  now,  without  indorsing  any  thing  else  he  has  said,  I  will  ask  this  audience  to 
give  three  cheers  for  Hickman.  [The  audience  responded  with  three  rousing  cheers 
tor  Hickman.] 

Another  point  in  the  copy-right  essay  to  which  I  would  ask  your  attention,  is 
rather  a  feature  to  be  extracted  from  the  whole  thing,  than  from  any  express 
declaration  of  it  at  any  point.  It  is  a  general  feature  of  that  document,  and 
indeed,  of  all  of  Judge  Douglas's  discussions  of  this  question,  that  the  Terri- 
tories of  the  United  States  and  the  States  of  this  Union  are  exactly  alike  — 


245 

that  there  is  no  difference  between  them  at  all  —  that  the  Constitution  applies 
to  the  Territories  precisely  as  it  does  to  the  States — and  that  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment, under  the  Constitution,  may  not  do  in  a  State  what  it  may  not  do  in  a  Ter- 
ritory, and  what  it  must  do  in  a  State,  it  must  do  in  a  Territory.  Gentlemen,  is  that 
a  true  view  of  the  case  ?  It  is  necessary  for  this  squatter  sovereignty ;  but  is  it  true  ? 

Let  us  consider.  What  does  it  depend  upon  ?  It  depends  altogether  upon  the 
proposition  that  the  States  must,  without  the  interference  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment, do  all  those  things  that  pertain  exclusively  to  themselves — that  are  local  in 
their  nature,  that  have  no  connection  with  the  General  Government.  After  Judge 
Douglas  has  established  this  proposition,  which  nobody  disputes  or  ever  has  disputed, 
he  proceeds  to  assume,  without  proving  it,  that  slavery  is  one  of  those  little,  unim- 
portant, trivial  matters  which  are  of  just  about  as  much  consequence  as  the  question 
would  be  to  me,  whether  my  neighbor  should  raise  horned  cattle  or  plant  tobacco ; 
that  there  is  no  moral  question  about  it,  but  that  it  is  altogether  a  matter  of  dollars 
and  cents ;  that  when  a  new  Territory  is  opened  for  settlement,  the  first  man  who 
goes  into  it  may  plant  there  a  thing  which,  like  the  Canada  thistle  or  some  other  of 
those  pests  of  the  soil,  cannot  be  dug  out  by  the  millions  of  men  who  will  come  there- 
after ;  that  it  is  one  of  those  little  things  that  is  so  trivial  in  its  nature  that  it  has  no 
effect  upon  any  body  save  the  few  men  who  first  plant  upon  the  soil ;  that  it  is  not  a 
thing  which  in  any  way  affects  the  family  of  communities  composing  these  States, 
nor  any  way  endangers  the  General  Government.  Judge  Douglas  ignores  altogether 
the  very  well  known  fact,  that  we  have  never  had  a  serious  menace  to  our  political 
existence,  except  it  sprang  from  this  thing,  which  he  chooses  to  regard  as  only  upon 
a  par  with  onions  and  potatoes. 

Turn  it,  and  contemplate  it  in  another  viewr.  He  says,  that  according  to  his  Pop- 
ular Sovereignty,  the  General  Government  may  give  to  the  Territories  governors, 
judges,  marshals,  secretaries,  and  all  the  other  chief  men  to  govern  them,  but  they 
must  not  touch  upon  this  other  question.  Why  ?  The  question  of  who  shall  be  Gov- 
ernor of  a  Territory  for  a  year  or  two,  and  pass  away,  without  his  track  being  left 
upon  the  soil,  or  an  act  which  he  did  for  good  or  for  evil  being  left  behind,  is  a  ques- 
tion of  vast  national  magnitude.  It  is  so  much  opposed  in  its  nature  to  locality,  that 
the  nation  itself  must  decide  it ;  while  this  other  matter  of  planting  slavery  upon  a 
soil — a  thing  which  once  planted  cannot  be  eradicated  by  the  succeeding  millions  who 
have  as  much  right  there  as  the  first  comers,  or  if  eradicated,  not  without  infinite  dif- 
ficulty and  a  long  struggle — he  considers  the  power  to  prohibit  it,  as  one  of  these  lit- 
tle, local,  trivial  things  that  the  nation  ought  not  to  say  a  word  about ;  that  it  affects 
nobody  save  the  few  men  who  are  there. 

Take  these  two  things  and  consider  them  together,  present  the  question  of  planting 
a  State  with  the  institution  of  slavery  by  the  side  of  a  question  of  who  shall  be  Gov- 
ernor of  Kansas  for  a  year  or  two,  and  is  there  a  man  here, — is  there  a  man  on  earth, 
who  would  not  say  the  Governor  question  is  the  little  one,.and  the  slavery  question 
is  the  great  one  ?  I  ask  any  honest  Democrat  if  the  small,  the  local,  and  the  trivial 
and  temporary  question  is  not,  who  shall  be  Governor  ?  While  the  durable,  the  im- 
portant and  the  mischievous  one  is,  shall  this  soil  be  planted  with  slavery  ? 

This  is  an  idea,  I  suppose,  which  has  arisen  in  Judge  Douglas's  mind  from  his  pe- 
culiar structure.  I  suppose  the  institution  of  slavery  really  looks  small  to  him.  He 
is  so  put  up  by  nature  that  a  lash  upon  his  back  would  hurt  him,  but  a  lash  upon  any 
body  else's  back  does  not  hurt  him.  That  is  the  build  of  the  man,  and  consequently 
he  looks  upon  the  matter  of  slavery  in  this  unimportant  light. 

Judge  Douglas  ought  to  remember  when  he  is  endeavoring  to  force  this  policy  up- 
on the  American  people  that  while  he  is  put  up  in  that  way  a  good  many  are  not. 
He  ought  to  remember  that  there  was  once  in  this  country  a  man  by  the  name  of 
Thomas  Jefferson,  supposed  to  be  a  Democrat — a  man  whose  principles  and  policy 
are  not  very  prevalent  amongst  Democrats  to-day,  it  is  true ;  but  that  man  did  not 
take  exactly  this  view  of  the  insignificance  of  the  element  of  slavery  which  our  friend 
Judge  Douglas  does.  In  contemplation  of  this  thing,  we  all  know  he  was  led  to  ex- 


246 

claim,  "  I  tremble  for  my  country  when  I  remember  that  God  is  just !  "  We  know 
how  he  looked  upon  it  when  he  thus  expressed  himself.  There  was  danger  to  this 
country — danger  of  the  avenging  justice  of  God  in  that  little  unimportant  Popular 
Sovereignty  question  of  Judge  Douglas.  He  supposed  there  was  a  question  of  God's 
eternal  justice  wrapped  up  in  the  enslaving  of  any  race  of  men,  or  any  man,  and  that 
those  who  did  so  braved  the  arm  of  Jehovah — that  when  a  nation  thus  dared  the  Al- 
mighty, every  friend  of  that  nation  had  cause  to  dread  his  wrath.  Choose  ye  be- 
tween Jefferson  and  Douglas  as  to  what  is  the  true  view  of  this  element  among  us. 

There  is  another  little  difficulty  about  this  matter  of  treating  the  Territories  and 
States  alike  in  all  things,  to  which  I  ask  your  attention,  and  I  shall  leave  this  branch 
of  the  case.  If  there  is  no  difference  between  them,  why  not  make  the  Territories 
States  at  once  ?  What  is  the  reason  that  Kansas  was  not  fit  to  come  into  the  Union 
when  it  was  organized  into  a  Territory,  in  Judge  Douglas's  view  ?  Can  any  of  you 
tell  any  reason  why  it  should  not  have  come  into  the  Union  at  once  ?  They  are  fit, 
as  he  thinks,  to  decide  upon  the  slavery  question — the  largest  and  most  important 
with  which  they  could  possibly  deal — what  could  they  do  by  coming  into  the  Union 
that  they  are  not  fit  to  do,  according  to  his  view,  by  staying  out  of  it  ?  Oh,  they  are 
not  fit  to  sit  in  Congress  and  decide  upon  the  rates  of  postage,  or  questions  of  ad  va- 
lorem or  specific  duties  on  foreign  goods,  or  live  oak  timber  contracts  ;  they  are  not 
fit  to  decide  these  vastly  important  matters,  which  are  national  in  their  import,  but 
they  are  fit,  "  from  the  jump,"  to  decide  this  little  negro  question.  But,  gentlemen, 
the  case  is  too  plain ;  I  occupy  too  much  time  on  this  head,  and  I  pass  on. 

Near  the  close  of  the  copy-right  essay,  the  Judge,  I  think,  comes  very  near  kicking 
his  own  fat  into  the  fire.  I  did  not  think,  when  I  commenced  these  remarks,  that  I 
would  read  from  that  article,  but  I  now  believe  I  will : 

"  This  exposition  of  the  history  of  these  measures,  shows  conclusively  that  the  au- 
thors of  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850  and  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  of 
1854,  as  well  as  the  members  of  the  Continental  Congress  of  1774,  and  the  found- 
ers of  our  system  of  Government  subsequent  to  the  Revolution,  regarded  the  people 
of  the  Territories  and  Colonies  as  political  communities  which  were  entitled  to  a  free 
and  exclusive  power  of  legislation  in  their  provisional  legislatures,  where  their  repre- 
sentation could  alone  be  preserved,  in  all  cases  of  taxation  and  internal  polity." 

When  the  Judge  saw  that  putting  in  the  word  "  slavery  "  would  contradict  his  own 
history,  he  put  in  what  he  knew  would  pass  as  synonymous  with  it :  "  internal  poli- 
ty." Whenever  we  find  that  in  one  of  his  speeches,  the  substitute  is  used  in  this 
manner ;  and  I  can  tell  you  the  reason.  It  would  be  too  bald  a  contradiction  to  say 
slavery,  but  "internal  polity"  is  a  general  phrase,  which  would  pass  in  some  quar- 
ters, and  which  he  hopes  will  pass  with  the  reading  community  for  the  same  thing : 

"  This  right  pertains  to  the  people  collectively,  as  a  law-abiding  and  peaceful  com- 
munity, and  not  in  the  isolated  individuals  who  may  wander  upon  the  public  domain 
in  violation  of  the  law.  It  can  only  be  exercised  where  there  are  inhabitants  suffi- 
cient to  constitute  a  Government,  and  capable  of  performing  its  various  functions  and 
duties,  a  fact  to  be  ascertained  and  determined  by" — who  do  you  think  ?  Judge 
Douglas  says  "  By  Congress ! " 

"  Whether  the  number  shall  be  fixed  at  ten,  fifteen  or  twenty  thousand  inhabitants, 
does  not  affect  the  principle." 

Now  I  have  only  a  few  comments  to  make.  Popular  Sovereignty,  by  his  own 
words,  does  not  pertain  to  the  few  persons  who  wander  upon  the  public  domain  in  vi- 
olation of  law.  We  have  his  words  for  that.  When  it  does  pertain  to  them,  is  when 
they  are  sufficient  to  be  formed  into  an  organized  political  community,  and  he  fixes 
the  minimum  for  that  at  10,000,  and  the  maximum  at  20,000.  Now  I  would  like 
to  know  what  is  to  be  done  with  the  9,000  ?  Are  they  all  to  be  treated,  until  they 
are  large  enough  to  be  organized  into  a  political  community,  as  wanderers  upon  the 
public  land  in  violation  of  law  ?  And  if  so  treated  and  driven  out,  at  what  point  of 
time  would  there  ever  be  ten  thousand  ?  If  they  were  not  driven  out,  but  remained 
there  as  trespassers  upon  the  public  land  in  violation  of  the  law,  can  they  establish 


247 

slavery  there  ?  No, — the  Judge  says  Popular  Sovereignty  don't  pertain  to  them 
then.  Can  they  exclude  it  then  ?  No,  Popular  Sovereignty  don't  pertain  to  them 
then.  I  would  like  to  know,  in  the  case  covered  by  the  Essay,  what  condition  the 
people  of  the  Territory  are  in  before  they  reach  the  number  of  ten  thousand  ? 

But  the  main  point  I  wish  to  ask  attention  to  is,  that  the  question  as  to  when  they 
shall  have  reached  a  sufficient  number  to  be  formed  into  a  regular  organized  commu- 
nity, is  K  be  decided  "by  Congress."  Judge  Douglas  says  so.  Well,  gentlemen, 
that  is  about  all  we  want.  No,  that  is  all  the  Southerners  want.  That  is  what  all 
those  who  are  for  slavery  want.  They  do  not  want  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  from 
coming  into  the  new  Territories,  and  they  do  not  want  Popular  Sovereignty  to  hin- 
der it;  and  as  Congress  is  to  say  when  they  are  ready  to  be  organized,  all  that  the 
South  has  to  do,  is  to  get  Congress  to  hold  off.  Let  Congress  hold  off  until  they  are 
ready  to  be  admitted  as  a  State,  and  the  South  has  all  it  wants  in  taking  slavery  into 
and  planting  it  in  all  the  Territories  that  we  now  have,  or  hereafter  may  have.  In 
a  word,  the  whole  thing,  at  a  dash  of  the  pen,  is  at  last  put  in  the  power  of  Con- 
gress ;  for  if  they  do  not  have  this  Popular  Sovereignty  until  Congress  organizes 
them,  I  ask  if  it  at  last  does  not  come  from  Congress  ?  If,  at  last,  it  amounts  to  any 
thing  at  all,  Congress  gives  it  to  them.  I  submit  this  rather  for  your  reflection  than 
for  comment.  After  all  that  is  said,  at  last  by  a  dash  of  the  pen,  every  thing  thai 
has  gone  before  is  undone,  and  he  puts  the  whole  question  under  the  control  of  Con- 
gress. After  fighting  through  more  than  three  hours,  if  you  undertake  to  read  it,  he 
at  last  places  the  whole  matter  under  the  control  of  that  power  which  he  had  been 
contending  against,  and  arrives  at  a  result  directly  contrary  to  what  he  had  been  la- 
boring to  do.  He  at  last  leaves  the  whole  matter  to  the  control  of  Congress. 

There  are  two  main  objects,  as  I  understand  it,  of  this  Harper's  Magazine  essay. 
One  was  to  show,  if  possible,  that  the  men  of  our  revolutionary  times  were  in  favor 
of  his  Popular  Sovereignty ;  and  the  other  was  to  show  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision 
had  not  entirely  squelched  out  this  Popular  Sovereignty.  I  do  not  propose,  hi  re- 
gard to  this  argument  drawn  from  the  history  of  former  times,  to  enter  into  a  detailed 
examination  of  the  historical  statements  he  has  made.  I  have  the  impression  that 
they  are  inaccurate  in  a  great  many  instances.  Sometimes  in  positive  statement,  but 
very  much  more  inaccurate  by  the  suppression  of  statements  that  really  belong  to  the 
history.  But  I  do  not  propose  to  affirm  that  this  is  so  to  any  very  great  extent ;  or  to 
enter  into  a  very  minute  examination  of  his  historical  statements.  I  avoid  doing  so 
upon  this  principle — that  if  it  were  important  for  me  to  pass  out  of  this  lot  in  the 
least  period  of  time  possible,  and  I  came  to  that  fence  and  saw  by  a  calculation  of 
my  known  strength  and  agility  that  I  could  clear  it  at  a  bound,  it  would  be  folly  for 
me  to  stop  and  consider  whether  I  could  or  not  crawl  through  a  crack.  So  I  say  of 
the  whole  history,  contained  in  his  essay,  where  he  endeavored  to  link  the  men  of  the 
Revolution  to  Popular  Sovereignty.  It  only  requires  an  effort  to  leap  out  of  it — a 
single  bound  to  be  entirely  successful.  If  you  read  it  over  you  will  find  that  he 
quotes  here  and  there  from  documents  of  the  revolutionary  times,  tending  to  show 
that  the  people  of  the  colonies  were  desirous  of  regulating  their  own  concerns  in  their 
own  way,  that  the  British  Government  should  not  interfere  ;  that  at  one  time  they 
struggled  with  the  British  Government  to  be  permitted  to  exclude  the  African  slave- 
trade  ;  if  not  directly,  to  be  permitted  to  exclude  it  indirectly  by  taxation  sufficient 
to  discourage  and  destroy  it.  From  these  and  many  things  of  this  sort,  Judge  Doug- 
la:,  argues  that  they  were  in  favor  of  the  people  of  our  own  Territories  excluding 
slavery  if  they  wanted  to,  or  planting  it  there  if  they  wanted  tc,  doing  just  as  they 
pleased  from  the  time  they  settled  upon  the  Territory.  Now,  however  his  history 
may  apply,  and  whatever  of  his  argument  there  may  be  that  is  sound  and  accurate 
or  unsound  and  inaccurate,  if  we  can  find  out  what  these  men  did  themselves  do  up- 
on this  very  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  does  it  riot  end  the  whole  thing? 
If  after  all  this  labor  and  effort  to  show  that  the  men  of  the  Revolution  were  in  favor 
of  his  Popular  Sovereignty  and  his  mode  of  dealing  with  slavery  in  the  Territories, 
we  can  show  that  these  very  men  took  hold  of  that  subject,  and  dealt  with  it,  we  can 


248 

see  for  ourselves  how  they  dealt  with  it.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  argument  or  infer- 
ence, but  we  know  what  they  thought  about  it 

It  is  precisely  upon  that  part  of  the  history  of  the  country,  that  one  important 
omission  is  made  by  Judge  Douglas.  He  selects  parts  of  the  history  of  the  United 
States  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  treats  it  as  the  whole,  omitting  from  his  histor- 
ical sketch  the  legislation  of  Congress  in  regard  to  the  admission  of  Missouri,  by 
which  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  established,  and  slavery  excluded  from  a  country 
half  as  large  as  the  present  United  States.  All  this  is  left  out  of  his  history,  and  in 
nowise  alluded  to  by  him,  so  far  as  I  can  remember,  save  once,  when  he  makes  a 
remark,  that  upon  his  principle  the  Supreme  Court  were  authorized  to  pronounce  a 
decisioi  that  the  act  called  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  unconstitutional.  All  that 
history  has  been  left  out.  But  this  part  of  the  history  of  the  country  was  not  made 
by  the  men  of  the  Revolution. 

There  was  another  part  of  our  political  history  made  by  the  very  men  who  were 
the  actors  in  the  Revolution,  which  has  taken  the  name  of  the  Ordinance  of  '87. 
Let  me  bring  that  history  to  your  attention.  In  1784,  I  believe,  this  same  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson drew  up  an  ordinance  for  the  government  of  the  country  upon  which  we  now 
stand  ;  or  rather  a  frame  or  draft  of  an  ordinance  for  the  government  of  this  coun- 
try, here  in  Ohio,  our  neighbors  in  Indiana,  us  who  live  in  Illinois,  our  neighbors  in 
Wisconsin  and  Michigan.  In  that  ordinance,  drawn  up  not  only  for  the  government 
of  that  Territory,  but  for  the  Territories  south  of  the  Ohio  River,  Mr.  Jefferson 
expressly  provided  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery.  Judge  Douglas  says,  and  perhaps 
is  right,  that  that  provision  was  lost  from  that  ordinance.  I  believe  that  is  true. 
When  the  vote  was  taken  upon  it,  a  majority  of  all  present  in  the  Congress  of  the 
Confederation  voted  for  it ;  but  there  were  so  many  absentees  that  those  voting  for 
it  did  not  make  the  clear  majority  necessary,  and  it  was  lost.  But  three  years  after 
that  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  were  together  again,  and  they  adopted  a  new 
ordinance  for  the  government  of  this  Northwest  Territory,  not  contemplating  terri- 
tory south  of  the  river,  for  the  States  owning  that  territory  had  hitherto  refrained 
from  giving  it  to  the  General  Government ;  hence  they  made  the  ordinance  to  apply 
only  to  what  the  Government  owned.  In  that,  the  provision  excluding  slavery  was 
inserted  and  passed  unanimously,  or  at  any  rate  it  passed  and  became  a  part  of  the 
law  of  the  land.  Under  that  ordinance  we  live.  First  here  in  Ohio  you  were  a 
Territory,  then  an  enabling  act  was  passed,  authorizing  you  to  form  a  Constitution 
and  State  Government,  provided  it  was  republican  and  not  in  conflict  with  the  Ordi- 
nance of  '87.  When  you  framed  your  Constitution  and  presented  it  for  admission, 
I  think  you  will  find  the  legislation  upon  the  subject  will  show  that,  "  whereas  you 
had  formed  a  Constitution  that  was  republican,  and  not  in  conflict  with  the  Ordinance  of 
'87,"  therefore,  you  were  admitted  upon  equal  footing  with  the  original  States.  The 
same  process  in  a  few  years  was  gone  through  with  in  Indiana,  and  so  with  Illinois, 
and  the  same  substantially  with  Michigan  and  Wisconsin. 

Not  only  did  that  ordinance  prevail,  but  it  was  constantly  looked  to  whenever  a 
step  was  taken  by  a  new  Territory  to  become  a  State.  Congress  always  turned 
their  attention  to  it,  and  in  all  their  movements  upon  this  subject,  they  traced  their 
course  by  that  Ordinance  of  '87.  When  they  admitted  new  States,  they  advertised 
them  of  this  ordinance  as  a  part  of  the  legislation  of  the  country.  They  did  so  be- 
cause they  had  traced  the  Ordinance  of  '87  throughout  the  history  of  this  country. 
Begin  with  the  men  of  the  Revolution,  and  go  down  for  sixty  entire  years,  and  until 
the  last  scrap  of  that  Territory  comes  into  the  Union  in  the  form  of  the  State  of 
Wisconsin — every  thing  was  made  to  conform  with  the  Ordinance  of  '87,  excluding 
slavery  from  that  vast  extent  of  country. 

I  omitted  to  mention  in  the  right  place  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
was  in  process  of  being  framed  when  that  ordinance  was  made  by  the  Congress 
of  the  Confederation ;  and  one  of  the  first  acts  of  Congress  itself,  under  the  new 
Constitution  itself,  was  to  give  force  to  that  ordinance  by  putting  power  to  carry  it 
out  in  the  hands  of  the  new  officers  under  the  Constitution,  in  the  place  of  the  old 


249 

ones,  who  had  been  legislated  out  of  existence  by  the  change  in  the  Government 
from  the  Confederation  to  the  Constitution.  Not  only  so,  but  I  believe  Indiana  once 
or  twice,  if  not  Ohio,  petitioned  the  General  Government  for  the  privilege  of  sus- 
pending that  provision  and  allowing  them  to  have  slaves.  A  report  made  by  Mr. 
Randolph,  of  Virginia,  himself  a  slaveholder,  was  directly  against  it,  and  the  action 
was  to  refuse  them  the  privilege  of  violating  the  Ordinance  of  '87. 

This  period  of  history,  which  I  have  run  over  briefly,  is,  I  presume,  as  familiar  to 
most  of  this  assembly  as  any  other  part  of  the  history  of  our  country.  I  suppose 
that  few  of  my  hearers  are  not  as  familiar  with  that  part  of  history  as  I  am,  and  I 
only  mention  it  to  recall  your  attention  to  it  at  this  time.  And  hence  I  ask  how  ex- 
traordinary a  thing  it  is  that  a  man  who  has  occupied  a  position  upon  the  floor  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  Slates,  who  is  now  in  his  third  term,  and  who  looks  to  see  the 
Government  of  this  whole  country  fall  into  his  own  hands,  pretending  to  give  a 
truthful  and  accurate  history  of  the  slavery  question  in  this  country,  should  so  en- 
tirely ignore  the  whole  of  that  portion  of  our  history — the  most  important  of  all. 
Is  it  not  a  most  extraordinary  spectacle,  that  a  man  should  stand  up  and  ask  for  any 
confidence  in  his  statements,  who  sets  out  as  he  does  with  portions  of  history,  calling 
upon  the  people  to  believe  that  it  is  a  true  and  fair  representation,  when  the  leading 
part,  and  controlling  feature,  of  the  whole  history  is  carefully  suppressed  ? 
.  But  the  mere  leaving  out  is  not  the  most  remarkable  feature  of  this  most  remark- 
able essay.  His  proposition  is  to  establish  that  the  leading  men  of  the  Revolution 
were  for  his  great  principle  of  non-intervention  by  the  Government  in  the  question 
of  slavery  in  the  Territories ;  while  history  shows  that  they  decided  in  the  cases 
actually  brought  before  them,  in  exactly  the  contrary  way,  and  he  knows  it.  Not 
only  did  they  so  decide  at  that  time,  but  they  stuck  to  it  during  sixty  years,  through 
thick  and  thin,  as  long  as  there  was  one  of  the  revolutionary  heroes  upon  the  stage 
of  political  action.  Through  their  whole  course,  from  first  to  last,  they  clung  to 
freedom.  And  now  he  asks  the  community  to  believe  that  the  men  of  the  Revolu- 
tion were  in  favor  of  his  great  principle,  when  we  have  the  naked  history  that  they 
themselves  dealt  with  this  very  subject-matter  of  his  principle,  and  utterly  re- 
pudiated his  principle,  acting  upon  a  precisely  contrary  ground.  It  is  as  im- 
pudent and  absurd  as  if  a  prosecuting  attorney  should  stand  up  before  a  jury, 
and  ask  them  to  convict  A  as  the  murderer  of  B,  while  B  was  walking  alive  before 
them. 

I  say  again,  if  Judge  Douglas  asserts  that  the  men  of  the  Revolution  acted  upon 
principles  by  which,  to  be  consistent  with  themselves,  they  ought  to  have  adopted  his 
popular  sovereignty,  then,  upon  a  consideration  of  his  own  argument,  he  had  a  right 
to  make  you  believe  that  they  understood  the  principles  of  government,  but  misap- 
plied them — that  he  has  arisen  to  enlighten  the  world  as  to  the  just  application  of 
tJbis  principle.  He  has  a  right  to  try  to  persuade  you  that  he  understands  their 
principles  better  than  they  did,  and,  therefore,  he  will  apply  them  now,  not  as  they 
did,  but  as  they  ought  to  have  done.  He  has  a  right  to  go  before  the  community, 
and  try  to  convince  them  of  this  ;  but  he  has  no  right  to  attempt  to  impose  upon 
any  one  the  belief  that  these  men  themselves  approved  of  his  great  principle. 
There  are  two  ways  of  establishing  a  proposition.  One  is  by  trying  to  demonstrate 
it  upon  reason ;  and  the  other  is,  to  show  that  great  men  in  former  times  have 
thought  so  and  so,  and  thus  to  pass  it  by  the  weight  of  pure  authority.  Now,  if  Judge 
Douglas  will  demonstrate  somehow  that  this  is  popular  sovereignty — the  right  of  one 
man  to  make  a  slave  of  another,  without  any  right  in  that  other,  or  any  one  else  to 
object — demonstrate  it  as  Euclid  demonstrated  propositions — there  is  no  objection. 
But  when  he  comes  forward,  seeking  to  carry  a  principle  by  bringing  to  it  the  au- 
thority of  men  who  themselves  utterly  repudiate  that  principle,  I  ask  that  he  shall 
not  be  permitted  to  do  it. 

I  see,  in  the  Judge's  speech  here,  a  short  sentence  in  these  words :  "  Our  fathers, 
when  they  formed  this  Government  under  which  we  live,  understood  this  question 
just  as  well  and  even  better  than  we  do  now."  That  is  true ;  I  stick  to  that.  I 


250 

will  stand  by  Judge  Douglas  in  that  to  the  bitter  end.  And  now,  Judge  Douglas, 
come  and  stand  by  me,  and  truthfully  show  how  they  acted,  understanding  it  better 
than  we  do.  All  I  ask  of  you,  Judge  Douglas,  is  to  stick  to  the  proposition  that  the 
men  of  the  Revolution  understood  this  subject  better  than  we  do  now,  and  with  thai 
better  understanding  they  acted  better  than  you  are  trying  to  act  now. 

I  wish  to  say  something  now  in  regard  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  as  dealt  with 
by  Judge  Douglas.  In  that  "  memorable  debate  "  between  Judge  Douglas  and  my- 
self, last  year,  the  Judge  thought  fit  to  commence  a  process  of  catechising  me,  and 
at  Freeport  I  answered  his  questions,  and  propounded  some  to  him.  Among  others 
propounded  to  him  was  one  that  I  have  here  now.  The  substance,  as  I  remember 
it,  is,  "  Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Territory,  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
in  any  lawful  way,  against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude 
slavery  from  its  limits,  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  Constitution?"  He  answered 
that  they  could  lawfully  exclude  slavery  from  the  United  States  Territories,  notwith- 
standing the  Dred  Scott  decision.  There  was  something  about  that  answer  that  has 
probably  been  a  trouble  to  the  Judge  ever  since. 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  expressly  gives  every  citizen  of  the  United  States  a 
right  to  carry  his  slaves  into  the  United  States  Territories.  And  now  there  was 
some  inconsistency  in  saying  that  the  decision  was  right,  and  saying,  too,  that  the 
people  of  the  Territory  could  lawfully  drive  slavery  out  again.  When  all  the  trash, 
the  words,  the  collateral  matter,  was  cleared  away  from  it — all  the  chaff  was  fanned 
out  of  it,  it  was  a  bare  absurdity — no  less  than  that  a  thing  may  be  lawfully  driven 
aio ay  from  where  it  has  a  lawful  right  to  be.  Clear  it  of  all  the  verbiage,  and  that 
is  the  naked  truth  of  his  proposition — that  a  thing  may  be  lawfully  driven  from  the 
place  where  it  has  a  lawful  right  to  stay.  Well,  it  was  because  the  Judge  couldn't 
help  seeing  this,  that  he  has  had  so  much  trouble  with  it ;  and  what  I  want  to  ask 
your  especial  attention  to,  just  now,  is  to  remind  you,  if  you  have  not  noticed  the 
fact,  that  the  Judge  does  not  any  longer  say  that  the  people  can  exclude  slavery. 
He  does  not  say  so  in  the  copy-right  essay  ;  he  did  not  say  so  in  the  speech  that  he 
made  here ;  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  since  his  re-election  to  the  Senate,  he  has  never 
said,  as  he  did  at  Freeport,  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  can  exclude  slavery. 
He  desires  that  you,  who  wish  the  Territories  to  remain  free,  should  believe  that  he 
stands  by  that  position,  but  he  does  not  say  it  himself.  He  escapes  to  some  extent 
the  absurd  position  I  have  stated  by  changing  his  language  entirely.  What  he  says 
now  is  something  different  in  language,  and  we  will  consider  whether  it  is  not  differ- 
ent in  sense  too.  It  is  now  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  or  rather  the  Constitution 
under  that  decision,  does  not  carry  slavery  into  the  Territories  beyond  the  power  of 
the  people  of  the  Territories  to  control  it  as  other  property.  He  does  not  say  the 
people  can  drive  it  out,  but  they  can  control  it  as  other  property.  The  language  is 
different ;  we  should  consider  whether  the  sense  is  different.  Driving  a  horse  out  of 
this  lot  is  too  plain  a  proposition  to  be  mistaken  about ;  it  is  putting  him  on  the  other 
side  of  the  fence.  Or  it  might  be  a  sort  of  exclusion  of  him  from  the  lot  if  you 
were  to  kill  him  and  let  the  worms  devour  him ;  but  neither  of  these  things  is  the 
same  as  u  controlling  him  as  other  property."  That  would  be  to  feed  him,  to  pam- 
per him,  to  ride  him,  to  use  and  abuse  him,  to  make  the  most  money  out  of  him  "  as 
other  property ;"  but  please  you,  what  do  the  men  who  are  in  favor  of  slavery  want 
more  than  this?  What  do  they  really  want,  other  than  that  slavery,  being  in  the 
Territories,  shall  be  controlled  as  other  property  ? 

If  they  want  any  thing  else,  I  do  not  comprehend  it.  I  ask  your  attention  to  this, 
first,  tor  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  the  change  of  ground  the  Judge  has  made ;  and, 
in  the  second  place,  the  importance  of  the  change — that  that  change  is  not  such  as  to 
give  you  gentlemen  who  want  his  popular  sovereignty  the  power  to  exclude  the  in- 
stitution or  drive  it  out  at  all.  I  know  the  Judge  sometimes  squints  at  the  argument 
that  in  controlling  it  as  other  property  by  unfriendly  legislation  they  may  control  it  to 
death,  as  you  might  in  the  case  of  a  horse,  perhaps,  feed  him  so  lightly  and  ride  him 
so  much  that  he  would  die.  But  when  you  come  to  legislative  control,  there  is  some- 


251 

thing  more  to  be  attended  to.  I  have  no  doubt,  myself,  that  if  the  Territories  should 
undertake  to  control  slave  property  as  other  property — that  is,  control  it  in  such  a 
way  that  it  would  be  the  most  valuable  as  property,  and  make  it  bear  its  just  propor- 
tion in  the  way  of  burdens  as  property — really  deal  with  it  as  property — the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  will  say,  "  God  speed  you  and  amen."  But  I  undertake 
to  give  the  opinion,  at  least,  that  if  the  Territories  attempt  by  any  direct  legislation  to 
drive  the  man  with  his  slave  out  of  the  Territory,  or  to  decide  that  his  slave  is  free  be- 
cause of  his  being  taken  in  there,  or  to  tax  him  to  such  an  extent  that  he  cannot  keep 
him  there,  the  Supreme  Court  will  unhesitatingly  decide  all  such  legislation  uncon- 
stitutional, as  long  as  that  Supreme  Court  is  constructed  as  the  Dred  Scott  Supreme 
Court  is.  The  first  two  things  they  have  already  decided,  except  that  there  is  a  little 
quibble  among  lawyers  between  the  words  dicta  and  decision.  They  have  already 
decided  a  negro  cannot  be  made  free  by  territorial  legislation. 

What  is  that  Dred  Scott  decision  ?  Judge  Douglas  labors  to  show  that  it  is  one 
thing,  while  I  think  it  is  altogether  different.  It  is  a  long  opinion,  but  it  is  all  em- 
bodied in  this  short  statement :  "  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  forbids 
Congress  to  deprive  a  man  of  his  property,  without  due  process  of  law ;  the  right 
of  property  in  slaves  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  that  Constitution ;  there- 
fore if  Congress  shall  undertake  to  say  that  a  man's  slave  is  no  longer  his  slave,  when 
he  crosses  a  certain  line  into  a  Territory,  that  is  depriving  him  of  his  property  without 
due  process  of  law,  and  is  unconstitutional."  There  is  the  whole  Dred  Scott  decis- 
ion. They  add  that  if  Congress  cannot  do  so  itself,  Congress  cannot  confer  any 
power  to  do  so,  and  hence  any  effort  by  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  do  either  of 
these  things  is  absolutely  decided  against.  It  is  a  foregone  conclusion  by  that  court 

Now,  as  to  this  indirect  mode  by  "  unfriendly  legislation,"  all  lawyers  here  will 
readily  understand  that  such  a  proposition  cannot  be  tolerated  for  a  moment,  because 
a  legislature  cannot  indirectly  do  that  which  it  cannot  accomplish  directly.  Then  I 
say  any  legislation  to  control  this  property,  as  property,  for  its  benefit  as  property, 
would  be  hailed  by  this  Dred  Scott  Supreme  Court,  and  fully  sustained ;  but  any 
legislation  driving  slave  property  out,  or  destroying  it  as  property,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, will  most  assuredly,  by  that  court,  be  held  unconstitutional. 

Judge  Douglas  says  if  the  Constitution  carries  slavery  into  the  Territories,  beyond 
the  power  of  the  people  of  the  Territories  to  control  it  as  other  property,  then  it  fol- 
lows logically  that  every  one  who  swears  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  must  give  that  support  to  that  property  which  it  needs.  And  if  the  Constitu- 
tion carries  slavery  into  the  Territories,  beyond  the  power  of  the  people  to  control  it 
as  other  property,  then  it  also  carries  it  into  the  States,  because  the  Constitution  is 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  Now,  gentlemen,  if  it  were  not  for  my  excessive  modesty 
I  would  say  that  I  told  that  very  thing  to  Judge  Douglas  quite  a  year  ago.  This 
argument  is  here  in  print,  and  if  it  were  not  for  my  modesty,  as  I  said,  I  might  call 
your  attention  to  it.  If  you  read  it,  you  will  find  that  I  not  only  made  that  argument, 
but  made  it  better  than  he  has  made  it  since. 

There  is,  however,  this  difference.  I  say  now,  and  said  then,  there  is  no  sort  of 
question  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  it  is  the  right  of  the  slaveholder  to 
take  his  slave  and  hold  him  in  the  Territory  ;  and  saying  this.  Judge  Douglas  him- 
self admits  the  conclusion.  He  says  if  that  is  so,  this  consequence  will  follow ;  and 
because  this  consequence  would  follow,  his  argument  is,  the  decision  cannot,  therefore, 
be  that  way — "  that  would  spoil  my  Popular  Sovereignty,  and  it  cannot  be  possible 
that  this  great  principle  has  been  squelched  out  in  this  extraordinary  way.  It  might 
be,  if  it  were  not  for  the  extraordinary  consequences  of  spoiling  my  humbug." 

Another  feature  of  the  Judge's  argument  about  the  Dred  Scott  case  is,  an  effort  to 
show  that  that  decision  deals  altogether  in  declarations  of  negatives  ;  that  the  Consti- 
tution does  not  affirm  any  thing  as  expounded  by  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  but  it  only 
declares  a  want  of  power — a  total  absence  of  power,  in  reference  to  the  Territories. 
It  seems  to  be  his  purpose  to  make  the  whole  of  that  decision  to  result  in  a  mere 
negative  declaration  of  a  want  of  power  in  Congress  to  do  any  thing  in  relation  to  this 


252 

matter  in  the  Territories.  I  know  the  opinion  of  the  Judges  states  that  there  is  a 
total  absence  of  power ;  but  that  is,  unfortunately,  not  all  it  states ;  for  the  Judges 
add  that  the  right,  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the 
Constitution.  It  does  not  stop  at  saying  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  rec- 
ognized in  the  Constitution,  is  declared  to  exist  somewhere  in  the  Constitution,  but 
says  it  is  affirmed  in  the  Constitution.  Its  language  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  it  is 
embodied  and  so  woven  into  that  instrument  that  it  cannot  be  detached  without  break- 
ing the  Constitution  itself.  In  a  word,  it  is  part  of  the  Constitution. 

Douglas  is  singularly  unfortunate  in  his  effort  to  make  out  that  decision  to  be  al- 
together negative,  when  the  express  language  at  the  vital  part  is  that  this  is  distinct- 
ly affirmed  in  the  Constitution.  I  think  myself,  and  I  repeat  it  here,  that  this  decis- 
ion does  not  merely  carry  slavery  into  the  Territories,  but  by  its  logical  conclusion  it 
carries  it  into  the  States  in  which  we  live.  One  provision  of  that  Constitution  is,  that 
it  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land — I  do  not  quote  the  language — any  Constitu- 
tion or  law  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  This  Dred  Scott  decision 
says  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  affirmed  in  that  Constitution,  which  is 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  any  State  Constitution  or  law  notwithstanding.  Then 
I  say  that  to  destroy  a  thing  which  is  distinctly  affirmed  and  supported  by  the  su- 
preme law  of  the  land,  even  by  a  State  Constitution  or  law,  is  a  violation  of  that 
supreme  law,  and  there  is  no  escape  from  it.  In  my  judgment  there  is  no  avoiding 
that  result,  save  that  the  American  people  shall  see  that  Constitutions  are  better  con- 
strued than  our  Constitution  is  construed  in  that  decision.  They  must  take  care  that 
it  is  more  faithfully  and  truly  carried  out  than  it  is  there  expounded. 

I  must  hasten  to  a  conclusion.  Near  the  beginning  of  my  remarks,  I  said  that  this 
insidious  Douglas  Popular  Sovereignly  is  the  measure  that  now  threatens  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Republican  party,  to  prevent  slavery  from  being  nationalized  in  the  United 
States.  I  propose  to  ask  your  attention  for  a  little  while  to  some  propositions  in  af- 
firmance o&that  statement.  Take  it  just  as  it  stands,  and  apply  it  as  a  principle ; 
extend  and  apply  that  principle  elsewhere  and  consider  where  it  will  lead  you.  I  now 
put  this  proposition,  that  Judge  Douglas's  Popular  Sovereignty  applied  will  reopen  the 
African  slave-trade ;  and  I  will  demonstrate  it  by  any  variety  of  ways  in  which  you 
can  turn  the  subject  or  look  at  it. 

The  Judge  says  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  have  the  right,  by  his  principle, 
to  have  slaves,  if  they  want  them.  Then  I  say  that  the  people  in  Georgia  have  the 
right  to  buy  slaves  in  Africa,  if  they  want  them,  and  I  defy  any  man  on  earth  to 
show  any  distinction  between  the  two  things — to  show  that  the  one  is  either  more 
wicked  or  more  unlawful ;  to  show,  on  original  principles,  that  one  is  better  or  worse 
than  the  other  ;  or  to  show  by  the  Constitution,  that  one  differs  a  whit  from  the  other. 
He  will  tell  me,  doubtless,  that  there  is  no  Constitutional  provision  against  people 
taking  slaves  into  the  new  Territories,  and  I  tell  him  that  there  is  equally  no  Constitu- 
tional provision  against  buying  slaves  in  Africa.  He  will  tell  you  that  a  people,  in 
the  exercise  of  popular  sovereignty,  ought  to  do  as  they  please  about  that  thing,  and 
have  slaves  if  they  want  them ;  and  I  tell  you  that  the  people  of  Georgia  are  as 
much  entitled  to  popular  sovereignty  and  to  buy  slaves  in  Africa,  if  they  want  them, 
as  the  people  of  the  Territory  are  to  have  slaves  if  they  want  them.  I  ask  any 
man,  dealing  honestly  with  himself,  to  point  out  a  distinction. 

I  have  recently  seen  a  1  )tter  of  Judge  Douglas'  in  which,  without  stating  that  to 
lie  the  object,  he  doubtless  endeavors  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  two.  He  says 
he  is  unalterably  opposed  to  the  repeal  of  the  laws  against  the  African  slave-trade. 
And  why  ?  He  then  seeks  to  give  a  reason  that  would  not  apply  to  his  popular 
sovereignty  in  the  Territories.  What  is  that  reason?  "The  abolition  of  the  Afri- 
can slave-trade  is  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution !"  I  deny  it.  There  is  no  truth 
in  the  proposition  that  the  abolition  of  the  African  slave-trade  is  a  compromise  of  the 
Constitution.  No  man  can  put  his  finger  on  any  thing  in  the  Constitution,  or  on  the 
line  of  history,  which  shows  it.  It  is  a  mere  barren  assertion,  made  simply  for  the 


253 

purpose  of  getting  up  a  distinction  between  the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade 
and  his  "  great  principle." 

At  the  time  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  adopted  it  was  expected 
that  the  slave-trade  would  be  abolished.  I  should  assert,  and  insist  upon  that,  if 
Judge  Douglas  denied  it  But  I  know  that  it  was  equally  expected  that  slavery 
would  be  excluded  from  the  Territories,  and  I  can  show  by  history,  that  m  regard  to 
these  two  things,  public  opinion  was  exactly  alike,  while  in  regard  to  positive  action, 
there  was  more  done  in  the  Ordinance  of  '87  to  resist  the  spread  of  slavery  than 
was  ever  done  to  abolish  the  foreign  slave-trade.  Lest  I  be  misunderstood,  I  say 
again  that  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  Constitution,  public  expectation  was 
/hat  the  slave-trade  would  be  abolished,  but  no  more  so  than  the  spread  of  slavery  in 
>he  Territories  should  be  restrained.  They  stand  alike,  except  that  in  the  Ordinance 
if  '87  there  was  a  mark  left  by  public  opinion,  showing  that  it  was  more  committed 
igainst  the  spread  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  than  against  the  foreign  slave- 
trade. 

Compromise !  What  word  of  compromise  was  there  about  it.  Why,  the  public 
sense  was  then  in  favor  of  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade ;  but  there  was  at  the 
time  a  very  great  commercial  interest  involved  in  it  and  extensive  capital  in  that 
branch  of  trade.  There  were  doubtless  the  incipient  stages  of  improvement  in  the 
South  in  the  way  of  farming,  dependent  on  the  slave-trade,  and  they  made  a  propo- 
sition to  Congress  to  abolish  the  trade  after  allowing  it  twenty  years,  a  sufficient  time 
for  the  capital  and  commerce  engaged  in  it  to  be  transferred  to  other  channels.  They 
made  no  provision  that  it  should  be  abolished  ki  twenty  years  ;  I  do  not  doubt  that  they 
expected  it  would  be ;  but  they  made  no  bargain  about  it.  The  public  sentiment  left 
no  doubt  in  the  minds  of  any  that  it  would  be  done  away.  I  repeat,  there  is  nothing 
in  the  history  of  those  times  in  favor  of  that  matter  being  a  compromise  of  the  Con- 
stitution. It  was  the  public  expectation  at  the  time,  manifested  in  a  thousand  ways, 
that  the  spread  of  slavery  should  also  be  restricted. 

Then  I  say  if  this  principle  is  established,  that  there  is  no  wrong  in  slavery,  and 
whoever  wants  it  has  a  right  to  have  it,  is  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents,  a  sort  of 
question  as  to  how  they  shall  deal  with  brutes,  that  between  us  and  the  negro  here 
there  is  no  sort  of  question,  but  that  at  the  South  the  question  is  between  the  negro 
and  the  crocodile.  That  is  all.  It  is  a  mere  matter  of  policy ;  there  is  a  perfect 
right  according  to  interest  to  do  just  as  you  please — when  this  is  done,  where  this 
doctrine  prevails,  the  miners  and  sappers  will  have  formed  public  opinion  for  the 
slave-trade.  They  will  be  ready  for  Jeff.  Davis  and  Stephens  and  other  leaders  of 
that  company,  to  sound  the  bugle  for  the  revival  of  the  slave-trade,  for  the  second 
Dred  Scott  decision,  for  the  flood  of  slavery  to  be  poured  over  the  free  States,  while 
we  shall  be  here  tied  down  and  helpless  and  run  over  like  sheep. 

It  is  to  be  a  part  arid  parcel  of  this  same  idea,  to  say  to  men  who  want  to  adhere 
to  the  Democratic  party,  who  have  always  belonged  to  that  party,  and  are  only  look- 
ing about  for  some  excuse  to  stick  to  it,  but  nevertheless  hate  slavery,  that  Douglas's 
popular  sovereignty  is  as  good  a  way  as  any  to  oppose  slavery.  They  allow  them- 
selves to  be  persuaded  easily  in  accordance  with  their  previous  dispositions,  into  this 
belief,  that  it  is  about  as  good  a  way  of  opposing  slavery  as  any,  and  we  can  do  that 
without  straining  our  old  party  ties  or  breaking  up  old  political  associations.  We 
can  do  so  without  being  called  negro  worshipers.  We  can  do  that  without  being 
subjected  to  the  jibes  and  sneers  that  are  so  readily  thrown  out  in  place  of  argument 
where  no  argument  can  be  found.  So  let  us  stick  to  this  popular  sovereignty — this 
insidious  popular  sovereignty.  Now  let  me  call  your  attention  to  one  thing  that  has 
really  happened,  which  shows  this  gradual  and  steady  debauching  of  public  opinion, 
this  course  of  preparation  for  the  revival  of  the  slave-trade,  for  the  territorial  slave 
code,  and  the  new  Dred  Scott  decision  that  is  to  carry  slavery  into  the  free  States. 
Did  you  ever,  five  years  ago,  hear  of  any  body  in  the  world  saying  that  the  negro 
had  no  share  in  the  Declaration  of  National  Independence;  that  it  did  not 
17 


254 

mean  negroes  at  all;  and  when  "all  men"  were  spoken  of  negroes  were  not 
included  ? 

I  am  satisfied  that  five  years  ago  that  proposition  was  not  put  upon  paper  bj  any 
living  being  any  where.  I  have  been  unable  at  any  time  to  find  a  man  in  an 
audience  who  would  declare  that  he  had  ever  known  of  any  body  saying  so  five  years 
ago.  But  last  year  there  was  not  a  Douglas  popular  sovereign  in  Illinois  who  did 
not  say  it.  Is  there  one  in  Ohio  but  declares  his  firm  belief  that  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  did  not  mean  negroes  at  all  ?  I  do  not  know  how  this  is ;  I  have  not 
been  here  much ;  but  I  presume  you  are  very  much  alike  every  where.  Then  I 
suppose  that  all  now  express  the  belief  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
never  did  mean  negroes.  I  call  upon  one  of  them  to  say  that  he  said  it  five 
years  ago. 

If  you  think  that  now,  and  did  not  think  it  then,  the  next  thing  that  strikes  me  is 
to  remark  that  there  has  been  a  change  wrought  in  you,  and  a  very  significant  change 
it  is,  being  no  less  than  changing  the  negro,  in  your  estimation,  from  the  rank  of  a 
man  to  that  of  a  brute.  They  are  taking  him  down,  and  placing  him,  when  spoken 
of,  among  reptiles  and  crocodiles,  as  Judge  Douglas  himself  expresses  it. 

Is  not  this  change  wrought  in  your  minds  a  very  important  change?  Public 
opinion  in  this  country  is  every  thing.  In  a  nation  like  ours  this  popular 
sovereignty  and  squatter  sovereignty  have  already  wrought  a  change  in  the  public; 
mind  to  the  extent  I  have  stated.  There  is  no  man  in  this  crowd  who  can  con- 
tradict it. 

Now,  if  you  are  opposed  to  slavery  honestly,  as  much  as  any  body,  I  ask  you  to 
note  that  fact,  and  the  like  of  which  is  to  follow,  to  be  plastered  on,  layer  after  layer, 
until  very  soon  you  are  prepared  to  deal  with  the  negro  every  where  as  with  the  brute. 
If  public  sentiment  has  not  been  debauched  already  to  this  point,  a  new  turn  of  the 
screw  in  that  direction  is  all  that  is  wanting ;  and  this  is  constantly  being  done  by 
the  teachers  of  this  insidious  popular  sovereignty.  You  need  but  one  or  two  turns 
further  until  your  minds,  now  ripening  under  these  teachings,  will  be  ready  for  all 
these  things,  and  you  will  receive  and  support,  or  submit  to,  the  slave-trade,  revived 
with  all  its  horrors,  a  slave  code  enforced  in  our  Territories,  and  a  new  Dred  Scott 
decision  to  bring  slavery  up  into  the  very  heart  of  the  free  North.  This,  I  must 
say,  is  but  carrying  out  those  words  prophetically  spoken  by  Mr.  Clay,  many,  many 
years  ago — I  believe  more  than  thirty  years,  when  he  told  an  audience  that  if  they 
would  repress  all  tendencies  to  liberty  and  ultimate  emancipation,  they  must  go  back  to 
the  era  of  our  independence  and  muzzle  the  cannon  which  thundered  its  annual  joyous 
return  on  the  Fourth  of  July ;  they  must  blow  out  the  moral  lights  around  us ;  they 
must  penetrate  the  human  soul  and  eradicate  the  love  of  liberty ;  but  until  they  did 
these  things,  and  others  eloquently  enumerated  by  him,  they  could  not  repress  all 
tendencies  to  ultimate  emancipation. 

I  ask  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  a  pre-eminent  degree  these  popular  sovereigns 
are  at  this  work;  blowing  out  the  moral  lights  around  us;  teaching  that  the 
negro  is  no  longer  a  man  but  a  brute ;  that  the  Declaration  has  nothing  to  do 
with  him ;  that  he  ranks  with  the  crocodile  and  the  reptile ;  that  man,  with  body 
and  soul,  is  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents.  I  suggest  to  this  portion  of  the  Ohio 
Republicans,  or  Democrats,  if  there  be  any  present,  the  serious  consideration  of  this 
fact,  that  there  is  now  going  on  among  you  a  steady  process  of  debauching  public 
opinion  on  this  subject.  With  this,  my  friends,  I  bid  you  adieu. 


255 


SPEECH  OF  HON.  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN, 

At  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September,  1859. 


MY  FELLOW-CITIZENS  OF  THE  STATE  OP  OHIO:  This  is  the  first  time  in  my 
life  that  I  have  appeared  before  an  audience  in  so  great  a  city  as  this.  I  therefore 
— though  I  am  no  longer  a  young  man — make  this  appearance  under  some  degree 
of  embarrassment.  But,  I  have  found  that  when  one  is  embarrassed,  usually  the 
shortest  way  to  get  through  with  it  is  to  quit  talking  or  thinking  about  it,  and  go  at 
something  else. 

I  understand  that  you  have  had  recently  with  you  my  very  distinguished  friend, 
Judge  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  and  I  understand,  without  having  had  an  opportunity 
(not  greatly  sought  to  be  sure)  of  seeing  a  report  of  the  speech  that  he  made  here, 
that  he  did  me  the  honor  to  mention  my  humble  name.  I  suppose  that  he  did  so  for 
the  purpose  of  making  some  objection  to  some  sentiment  at  some  time  expressed  by 
me.  I  should  expect,  it  is  true,  that  Judge  Douglas  had  reminded  you,  or  informed 
you,  if  you  had  never  before  heard  it,  that  I  had  once  in  my  life  declared  it  as  my 
opinion  that  this  Government  cannot  "endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free; 
that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,"  and,  as  I  had  expressed  it,  I  did 
not  expect  the  house  to  fall ;  that  I  did  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved ;  but 
that  I  did  expect  that  it  would  cease  to  be  divided;  that  it  would  become  all  one 
thing  or  all  the  other ;  that  either  the  opposition  of  slavery  would  arrest  the  further 
spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  would  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  was 
in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction ;  or  the  friends  of  slavery  will  push  it  forward 
until  it  becomes  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  or  new,  free  as  well  as  slave.  I 
did,  fifteen  months  ago,  express  that  opinion,  and  upon  many  occasions  Judge  Douglas 
has  denounced  it,  and  has  greatly,  intentionally  or  unintentionally,  misrepresented 
my  purpose  in  the  expression  of  that  opinion. 

I  presume,  without  having  seen  a  report  of  his  speech,  that  he  did  so  here.  I 
presume  that  he  alluded  also  to  that  opinion  in  different  language,  having  been  ex- 
pressed at  a  subsequent  time  by  Governor  Seward  of  New  York,  and  that  he  took 
the  two  in  a  lump  and  denounced  them ;  that  he  tried  to  point  out  that  there  was 
something  couched  in  this  opinion  which  led  to  the  making  of  an  entire  uniformity 
of  the  local  institutions  of  the  various  States  of  the  Union,  in  utter  disregard  of  the  dif- 
ferent States,  which  in  their  nature  would  seem  to  require  a  variety  of  institutions, 
and  a  variety  of  laws,  conforming  to  the  differences  in  the  nature  of  the  different  States 

Not  only  so ;  I  presume  he  insisted  that  this  was  a  declaration  of  war  between  the 
free  and  slave  States — that  it  was  the  sounding  to  the  onset  of  continual  war  between 
the  different  States,  the  slave  and  free  States. 

This  charge,  in  this  form,  was  made  by  Judge  Douglas,  on,  I  believe,  the  9th  of 
July,  1858,  in  Chicago,  in  my  hearing.  On  the  next  evening,  I  made  some  reply  to 
it  I  informed  him  that  many  of  the  inferences  he  drew  from  that  expression  of 
mine  were  altogether  foreign  to  any  purpose  entertained  by  me,  and  in  so  far  as  he 
should  ascribe  these  inferences  to  me,  as  my  purpose,  he  was  entirely  mistaken ;  and 
in  so  far  as  he  might  argue  that  whatever  might  be  my  purpose,  actions,  conforming 
to  my  views,  would  lead  to  these  results,  he  might  argue  and  establish  if  he  could; 
but,  so  far  as  purposes  were  concerned,  he  was  totally  mistaken  as  to  me. 

When  I  made  that  reply  to  him — when  I  told  him,  on  the  question  of  declaring 
war  between  the  different  States  of  the  Union,  that  I  had  not  said  that  I  did  not 
expect  any  peace  upon  this  question  until  slavery  was  exterminated ;  that  I  had  only 
said  I  expected  peace  when  that  institution  was  put  where  the  public  mind  should 


256 

rest  in  the  belief  that  it  was  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction ;  that  I  believed  from 
the  organization  of  our  Government,  until  a  very  recent  period  of  time,  the  institu- 
tion had  been  placed  and  continued  upon  such  a  basis  ;  that  we  had  had  comparative 
peace  upon  that  question  through  a  portion  of  that  period  of  time,  only  because  the 
public  mind  rested  in  that  belief  in  regard  to  it,  and  that  when  we  returned  to  that 
position  in  relation  to  that  matter,  I  supposed  we  should  again  have  peace  as  we  pre- 
viously had.  I  assured  him,  as  I  now  assure  you,  that  I  neither  then  had,  nor  have, 
or  ever  had,  any  purpose  in  any  way  of  interfering  with  the  institution  of  slavery, 
where  it  exists.  I  believe  we  have  no  power,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States ;  or  rather  under  the  form  of  Government  under  which  we  live,  to  interfere 
with  the  institution  of  slavery,  or  any  other  of  the  institutions  of  our  sister  States,  be 
they  free  ol  slave  States.  I  declared  then,  and  I  now  redeclare,  that  I  have  as  little 
inclination  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  where  it  now  exists,  through 
the  instrumentality  of  the  General  Government,  or  any  other  instrumentality,  as  I  be- 
lieve we  have  no  power  to  do  so.  I  accidentally  used  this  expression :  I  had  no 
purpose  of  entering  into  the  slave  States  to  disturb  the  institution  of  slavery !  So, 
upon  the  first  occasion  that  Judge  Douglas  got  an  opportunity  to  reply  to  me,  he 
passed  by  the  whole  body  of  what  I  had  said  upon  that  subject,  and  seized  upon  the 
particular  expression  of  mine,  that  I  had  no  purpose  of  entering  into  the  slave  States 
to  disturb  the  institution  of  slavery.  "  Oh,  no,"  said  he,  "  he  (Lincoln)  won't  enter 
into  the  slave  States  to  disturb  the  institution  of  slavery ;  he  is  too  prudent  a  man  to 
do  such  a  thing  as  that ;  he  only  means  that  he  will  go  on  to  the  line  between  the 
free  and  slave  States,  and  shoot  over  at  them.  This  is  all  he  means  to  do.  He 
means  to  do  them  all  the  harm  he  can,  to  disturb  them  all  he  can,  in  such  a  way  as 
to  keep  his  own  hide  in  perfect  safety." 

Well,  now,  I  did  not  think,  at  that  time,  that  that  was  either  a  very  dignified  or 
very  logical  argument ;  but  so  it  was,  I  had  to  get  along  with  it  as  well  as  I  could. 

It  has  occured  to  me  here  to-night,  that  if  I  ever  do  shoot  over  the  Hue  at  the 
people  on  the  other  side  of  the  line  into  a  slave  State,  and  purpose  to  do  so,  keeping 
my  skin  safe,  that  I  have  now  about  the  best  chance  I  shall  ever  have.  I  should 
not  wonder  that  there  are  some  Kentuckians  about  this  audience ;  we  are  close  to 
Kentucky ;  and  whether  that  be  so  or  not,  we  are  on  elevated  ground,  and  by  speaking 
distinctly,  I  should  not  wonder  if  some  of  the  Kentuckians  would  hear  me  on  the 
other  side  of  the  river.  For  that  reason  I  propose  to  address  a  portion  of  what  I 
have  to  say  to  the  Kentuckians. 

I  say,  then,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  Kentuckians,  that  I  am  what  they  call,  as  I 
understand  it,  a  "Black  Republican."  I  think  slavery  is  wrong,  morally  and  politi- 
cally. I  desire  that  it  should  be  no  further  spread  in  these  United  States,  and  I 
should  not  object  if  it  should  gradually  terminate  in  the  whole  Union.  While  I  say 
this  for  myself,  I  say  to  you  Kentuckians,  that  I  understand  you  differ  radically  with 
me  upon  this  proposition ;  that  you  believe  slavery  is  a  good  thing ;  that  slavery  is 
right;  that  it  ought  to  be  extended  and  perpetuated  in  this  Union.  Now,  there  bo- 
ing  this  broad  difference  between  us,  I  do  not  pretend  in  addressing  myself  to  you 
KentiK-kians,  to  attempt  proselyting  you;  that  would  be  a  vain  effort.  I  do  not  en- 
ter upon  it.  I  only  propose  to  try  to  show  you  that  you  ought  to  nominate  for  the 
next  Presidency,  at  Charleston,  my  distinguished  friend,  Judge  Douglas.  In  all  that 
there  is  a  difference  between  you  and  him,  I  understand  he  is  sincerely  for  you,  and 
mere  wisely  for  you,  than  you  are  for  yourselves.  I  will  try  to  demonstrate  that 
proposition.  Understand  now,  I  say  that  I  believe  he  is  as  sincerely  for  you,  and 
more  wisely  for  you,  than  you  are  for  yourselves. 

What  do  you  want  more  than  any  thing  else  to  make  successful  your  views  of  sla- 
very— to  advance  the  outspread  of  it,  and  to  secure  and  perpetuate  the  nationality 
of  it?  What  do  you  want  more  than  any  thing  else?  What  is  needed  absolutely? 
What  is  indispensable  to  you 9  Why !  if  I  may  be  allowed  to  answer  the  question, 
it  is  to  retain  a  hold  upon  the  North — it  is  to  retain  support  and  strength  from  the 
free  States.  If  you  can  get  this  support  and  strength  from  the  free  States  you  can 


257 

succeed.  If  you  do  not  get  this  support  and  this  strength  from  the  free  States,  you 
are  in  the  minority,  and  you  are  beaten  at  ones. 

If  that  proposition  be  admitted — and  it  is  undeniable — then  the  next  thing  I  say  to 
you  is,  that  Douglas  of  all  the  men  in  this  nation  is  the  only  man  that  affords  you 
any  hold  upon  the  free  States ;  that  no  other  man  can  give  you  any  strength  in  the 
free  States.  This  being  so,  if  you  doubt  the  other  branch  of  the  proposition,  whether 
he  is  for  you — whether  he  is  really  for  you,  as  I  have  expressed  it,  I  propose  asking 
your  attention  for  a  while  to  a  few  facts. 

The  issue  between  you  and  me,  understand,  is,  that  I  think  slavery  is  wrong,  and 
ought  not  to  be  outspread,  and  you  think  it  is  right  and  ought  to  be  extended  and  per» 
petuated.  [A  voice,  "  Oh,  Lord."]  That  is  my  Kentuckian  I  am  talking  to  now. 

I  now  proceed  to  try  to  show  you  that  Douglas  is  as  sincerely  for  you  and  more 
wisely  for  you  than  you  are  for  yourselves. 

In  the  first  place  we  know  that  in  a  Government  like  this,  in  a  Government  of  the 
people,  where  the  voice  of  all  the  men  of  that  country,  substantially,  enters  into  the 
execution — or  administration  rather — of  the  Government — in  such  a  Government, 
what  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  of  it,  is  public  opinion.  I  lay  down  the  proposition, 
that  Judge  Douglas  is  not  only  the  man  that  promises  you  in  advance  a  hold  upon 
the  North,  and  support  in  the  North,  but  that  he  constantly  moulds  public  opinion  to 
your  ends  ;  that  in  every  possible  way  he  can,  he  constantly  moulds  the  public  opin- 
ion of  the  North  to  your  ends ;  and  if  there  are  a  few  things  in  which  he  seems  to 
be  against  you — a  few  things  which  he  says  that  appear  to  be  against  you,  and  a 
few  that  he  forbears  to  say  which  you  would  like  to  have  him  say — you  ought  to 
remember  that  the  saying  of  the  one,  or  the  forbearing  to  say  the  other,  would 
lose  his  hold  upon  the  North,  and,  by  consequence,  would  lose  his  capacity  to  serve 
you. 

Upon  this  subject  of  moulding  public  opinion,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact — for 
a  well-established  fact  it  is — that  the  Judge  never  says  your  institution  of  slavery  is 
wrong  ;  he  never  says  it  is  right,  to  be  sure,  but  he  never  says  it  is  wrong.  There  is 
not  a  public  man  in  the  United  States,  I  believe,  with  the  exception  of  Senator  Doug- 
las, who  has  not,  at  some  time  in  his  life,  declared  his  opinion  whether  the  thing  is 
right  or  wrong;  but,  Senator  Douglas  never  declares  it  is  wrong.  He  leaves  himself 
at  perfect  liberty  to  do  all  in  your  favor  which  he  would  be  hindered  from  doing  if  he 
were  to  declare  the  thing  to  be  wrong.  On  the  contrary,  he  takes  all  the  chances 
that  he  has  for  inveigling  the  sentiment  of  the  North,  opposed  to  slavery,  into  your 
support,  by  never  saying  it  is  right.  This  you  ought  to  set  down  to  his  credit.  \rou 
ought  to  give  him  full  credit  for  this  much,  little  though  it  be,  in  comparison  to  the 
whole  which  he  does  for  you. 

Some  other  things  I  will  ask  your  attention  to.  He  said  upon  the  floor  of  the 
United  States  Senate,  and  he  has  repeated  it  as  I  understand  a  great  many  times, 
that  he  does  not  care  whether  slavery  is  "voted  up  or  voted  down."  This  again 
shows  you,  or  ought  to  show  you,  if  you  would  reason  upon  it.  that  he  does  not  be- 
lieve it  to  be  wrong,  for  a  man  may  say,  when  he  sees  nothing  wrong  in  a  thing,  that 
lie  does  not  care  whether  it  be  voted  up  or  voted  down  ;  but  no  man  can  logically  say 
that  he  cares  not  whether  a  thing  goes  up  or  goes  down,  which  to  him  appears  to  be 
wrong.  You  therefore  have  a  demonstration  in  this,  that  to  Judge  Douglas's  mind 
your  favorite  institution  which  you  would  have  spread  out,  and  made  perpetual,  is  no 
wrong. 

Another  thing  he  tells  you,  in  a  speech  made  at  Memphis,  in  Tennessee,  shortly 
after  the  canvass  in  Illinois,  last  year.  He  there  distinctly  told  the  people,  that  there 
was  a  "line  drawn  by  the  Almighty  across  this  continent,  on  the  one  side  of  which 
the  soil  must  always  be  cultivated  by  slaves;"  that  he  did  not  pretend  to  know  exact- 
ly where  that  line  was,  but  that  there  was  such  a  line.  I  want  to  ask  your  attention 
to  that  proposition  again ;  that  there  is  one  portion  of  this  continent  where  the  Al- 
mighty has  designed  the  soil  shall  always  be  cultivated  by  slaves  ;  that  its  being  cul- 
tivated by  slaves  at  that  place  is  right;  that  it  has  the  direct  sympathy  and  authori* 


258 

ty  of  the  Almighty.  Whenever  you  can  get  these  Northern  audiences  to  adopt  the 
opinion  that  slavery  is  right  on  the  other  side  of  the  Ohio ;  whenever  you  can  get 
them,  in  pursuance  of  Douglas's  views,  to  adopt  that  sentiment,  they  will  very  readi- 
ly make  the  other  argument,  which  is  perfectly  logical,  that  that  which  is  right  on 
that  side  of  the  Ohio,  cannot  be  wrong  on  this,  and  that  if  you  have  that  property  on 
that  side  of  the  Ohio,  under  the  seal  and  stamp  of  the  Almighty,  when  by  any  means 
it  escapes  over  here,  it  is  wrong  to  have  Constitutions  and  laws  "  to  devil "  you  about 
it.  So  Douglas  is  moulding  the  public  opinion  of  the  North,  first  to  say  that  the 
thing  is  right  in  your  State  over  the  Ohio  river,  and  hence  to  say  that  that  which  is 
right  there  is  not  wrong  here,  and  that  all  laws  and  Constitutions  here,  recognizing  it 
as  being  wrong,  are  themselves  wrong,  and  ought  to  be  repealed  and  abrogated.  He 
will  tell  you,  men  of  Ohio,  that  if  you  choose  here  to  have  laws  against  slavery,  it  is 
in  conformity  to  the  idea  that  your  climate  is  not  suited  to  it,  that  your  climate  is  not 
suited  to  slave  labor,  and  therefore  you  have  Constitutions  and  laws  against  it. 

Let  us  attend  to  that  argument  for  a  little  while  and  see  if  it  be  sound.  You  do 
not  raise  sugar-cane  (except  the  new-fashioned  sugar-cane,  and  you  won't  raise  that 
long),  but  they  do  raise  it  in  Louisiana.  You  don't  raise  it  in  Ohio  because  you  can't 
raise  it  profitably,  because  the  climate  don't  suit  it.  They  do  raise  it  in  Louisiana 
because' there  it  is  profitable.  Now,  Douglas  will  tell  you  that  is  precisely  the  sla- 
very question.  That  they  do  have  slaves  there  because  they  are  profitable,  and  you 
don't  have  them  here  because  they  are  not  profitable.  If  that  is  so,  then  it  leads  to 
dealing  with  the  one  precisely  as  with  the  other.  Is  there  then  any  thing  in  the  Con- 
stitution or  laws  of  Ohio  against  raising  sugar-cane  ?  Have  you  found  it  necessary 
to  put  any  such  provision  in  your  law  ?  Surely  not !  No  man  desires  to  raise  sugar- 
cane in  Ohio ;  but,  if  any  man  did  desire  to  do  so,  you  would  say  it  was  a  tyrannical 
law  that  forbids  his  doing  so,  and  whenever  you  shall  agree  with  Douglas,  whenever 
your  minds  are  brought  to  adopt  his  argument,  as  surely  you  will  have  reached  the 
conclusion,  that  although  slavery  is  not  profitable  in  Ohio,  if  any  man  wants  it,  it  is 
wrong  to  him  not  to  let  him  have  it. 

In  this  matter  Judge  Douglas  is  preparing  the  public  mind  for  you  of  Kentucky, 
to  make  perpetual  that  good  thing  in  your  estimation,  about  which  you  and  I  differ. 

In  this  connection  let  me  ask  your  attention  to  another  thing.  I  believe  it  is  safe 
to  assert  that  five  years  ago,  no  living  man  had  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  negro 
had  no  share  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Let  me  state  that  again :  five 
years  ago  no  living  man  had  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  negro  had  no  share  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence.  If  there  is  in  this  large  audience  any  man  who 
ever  knew  of  that  opinion  being  put  upon  paper  as  much  as  five  years  ago,  I  will  be 
obliged  to  him  now  or  at  a  subsequent  time  to  show  it. 

If  that  be  true  I  wish  you  then  to  note  the  next  fact ;  that  within  the  space  of  five 
years  Senator  Douglas,  in  the  argument  of  this  question,  has  got  his  entire  party,  so 
far  as  I  know,  without  exception,  to  join  in  saying  that  the  negro  has  no  share  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  If  there  be  now  in  all  these  United  States  one  Doug- 
las man  that  does  not  say  this,  I  have  been  unable  upon  any  occasion  to  scare  him 
up.  Now  if  none  of  you  said  this  five  years  ago,  and  all  of  you  say  it  now,  that  is 
a  matter  that  you  Kentuckians  ought  to  note.  That  is  a  vast  change  in  the  Northern 
public  sentiment  upon  that  question. 

Of  what  tendency  is  that  change  ?  The  tendency  of  that  change  is  to  bring  the 
public  mind  to  the  conclusion  that  when  men  are  spoken  of,  the  negro  is  not  meant ; 
that  when  negroes  are  spoken  of,  brutes  alone  are  contemplated.  That  change 
in  public  sentiment  has  already  degraded  the  black  man  in  the  estimation  of  Doug- 
las and  his  followers  from  the  condition  of  a  man  of  some  sort,  and  assigned  him  to 
the  condition  of  a  brute.  Now,  you  Kentuckians  ought  to  give  Douglas  credit  for 
this.  That  is  the  largest  possible  stride  that  can  be  made  in  regard  to  the  perpetua- 
tion of  your  thing  of  slavery. 

A  voice — "  Speak  to  Ohio  men,  and  not  to  Kentuckians !" 

Mr.  Lincoln — I  beg  permission  to  speak  as  I  please. 


259 

In  Kentucky  perhaps,  in  many  of  the  slave  States  certainly,  you  are  trying  to 
establish  the  rightfulness  of  slavery  by  reference  to  the  Bible.  You  are  trying  to 
show  fhat  slavery  existed  in  the  Bible  times  by  divine  ordinance.  Now,  Douglas 
is  wiser  than  you,  for  your  own  benefit,  upon  that  subject.  Douglas  ^nows  that 
whenever  you  establish  that  slavery  was  right  by  the  Bible,  it  will  occur  that  that 
slavery  was  the  slavery  of  the  white  man — of  men  without  reference  to  color — and 
he  knows  very  well  that  you  may  entertain  that  idea  in  Kentucky  as  much  as  you 
please,  but  you  will  never  win  any  Northern  support  upon  it.  He  makes  a  wiser 
argument  for  you ;  he  makes  the  argument  that  the  slavery  of  the  black  man,  the 
slavery  of  the  man  who  has  a  skin  of  a  different  color  from  your  own,  is  right.  He 
thereby  brings  to  your  support  Northern  voters  who  could  not  for  a  moment  be 
brought  by  your  own  argument  of  the  Bible-right  of  slavery.  Will  you  not  give 
him  credit  for  that  ?  Will  you  not  say  that  in  this  matter  he  is  more  wisely  for  you 
than  you  are  for  yourselves  ? 

Now,  having  established  with  his  entire  party  this  doctrine — having  been  entirely 
successful  in  that  branch  of  his  efforts  in  your  behalf,  he  is  ready  for  another. 

At  this  same  meeting  at  Memphis,  he  declared  that,  while  in  all  contests  between 
the  negro  and  the  white  man,  he  was  for  the  white  man,  but  that  in  all  questions  be- 
tween the  negro  and  the  crocodile  he  was  for  the  negro.  He  did  not  make  that  dec- 
laration accidentally  at  Memphis.  He  made  it  a  great  many  times  in  the  canvass  in 
Illinois  last  year  (though  I  don't  know  that  it  was  reported  in  any  of  his  speeches 
there),  but  he  frequently  made  it.  I  believe  he  repeated  it  at  Columbus,  and  I 
should  not  wonder  if  he  repeated  it  here.  It  is,  then,  a  deliberate  way  of  express- 
ing himself  upon  that  subject.  It  is  a  matter  of  mature  deliberation  with  him  thus 
to  express  himself  upon  that  point  of  his  case.  It  therefore  requires  some  deliber- 
ate attention. 

The  first  inference  seems  to  be  that  if  you  do  not  enslave  the  negro  you  are 
wronging  the  white  man  in  some  way  or  other ;  and  that  whoever  is  opposed  to  the 
negro  being  enslaved,  is,  in  some  way  or  other,  against  the  white  man.  Is  not  that 
a  falsehood  ?  If  there  was  a  necessary  conflict  between  the  white  man  and  the 
negro,  I  should  be  for  the  white  man  as  much  as  Judge  Douglas ;  but  I  say  there  is 
no  such  necessary  conflict.  I  say  that  there  is  room  enough  for  us  all  to  be  free, 
and  that  it  not  only  does  not  wrong  the  white  man  that  the  negro  should  be  free,  but 
it  positively  wrongs  the  mass  of  the  white  men  that  the  negro  should  be  enslaved ; 
that  the  mass  of  white  men  are  really  injured  by  the  effects  of  slave  labor  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  fields  of  their  own  labor. 

But  I  do  not  desire  to  dwell  upon  this  branch  of  the  question  more  than  to  say 
that  this  assumption  of  his  is  false,  and  I  do  hope  that  that  fallacy  will  not  long  pre- 
vail in  the  minds  of  intelligent  white  men.  At  all  events,  you  ought  to  thank  Judge 
Douglas  for  it.  It  is  for  your  benefit  it  is  made. 

The  other  branch  of  it  is,  that  in  a  struggle  between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile, 
he  is  for  the  negro.  Well,  I  don't  know  'that  there  is  any  struggle  between  the 
negro  and  the  crocodile,  either.  I  suppose  that  if  a  crocodile  (or  as  we  old  Ohio 
River  boatmen  used  to  call  them,  alligators)  should  come  across  a  white  man,  he 
would  kill  him  if  he  could,  and  so  he  would  a  negro.  But  what,  at  last,  is  Ihis  prop- 
osition ?  I  believe  that  it  is  a  sort  of  proposition  in  proportion,  which  may  be  stated 
thus:  "As  the  negro  is  to  the  white  man,  so  is  the  crocodile  to  the  negro;  and  as 
the  negro  may  rightfully  treat  the  crocodile  as  a  beast  or  reptile,  so  the  white  man 
may  rightfully  treat  the  negro  as  a  beast  or  a  reptile.  That  is  really  the  "  knip  "  of 
all  that  argument'  of  his. 

Now,  my  brother  Kentuckians,  who  believe  in  this,  you  ought  to  thank  Judge 
Douglas  for  having  put  that  in  a  much  more  taking  way  than  any  of  yourselves  have 
done. 

Again,  Douglas's  great  principle,  "  Popular  Sovereignty,"  as  he  calls  it,  gives  you, 
by  natural  consequence,  the  revival  of  the  slave-trade  whenever  you  want  it.  If 


260 

you  question  this,  listen  awhile,  consider  awhile,  what  I  shall  advance  in  support  of 
that  proposition. 

He  says  that  it  is  the  sacred  right  of  the  man  who  goes  into  the  Territories,  to 
have  slavery  if  he  wants  it.  Grant  that  for  argument's  sake.  Is  it  not  the  sacred 
right  of  the  man  who  don't  go  there  equally  to  buy  slaves  in  Africa,  if  he  wants 
them  ?  Can  you  point  out  the  difference  ?  The  man  who  goes  into  the  Territories 
of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  or  any  other  new  Territory,  with  the  sacred  right  of  tak- 
ing a  slave  there  which  belongs  to  him,  would  certainly  have  no  more  right  to  take 
one  there  than  I  would,  who  own  no  slave,  but  who  would  desire  to  buy  one  and  take 
him  there.  You  will  not  say — you,  the  friends  of  Judge  Douglas — but  that  the 
man  who  does  not  own  a  slave,  has  an  equal  right  to  buy  one  and  take  him  to  the 
Territory,  as  the  other  does  ? 

A  roice — "  I  want  to  ask  a  question.  Don't  foreign  nations  interfere  with  the 
slave-trade  ?" 

Mr.  Lincoln — Well !  I  understand  it  to  be  a  principle  of  Democracy  to  whip  for- 
eign nations  whenever  they  interfere  with  us. 

Voice — "  I  only  asked  for  information.     I  am  a  Republican  myself." 

Mr.  Lincoln — You  and  I  will  be  on  the  best  terms  in  the  world,  but  I  do  not  wish 
to  be  diverted  from  the  point  I  was  trying  to  press. 

I  say  that  Douglas's  Popular  Sovereignty,  establishing  his  sacred  right  in  the  peo- 
ple, if  you  please,  if  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion,  gives  equally  the  sacred  right 
to  the  people  of  the  States  or  the  Territories  themselves  to  buy  slaves,  wherever  they 
can  buy  them  cheapest ;  and  if  any  man  can  show  a  distinction,  I  should  like  to 
hear  him  try  it.  If  any  man  can  show  how  the  people  of  Kansas  have  a  better 
right  to  slaves  because  they  want  them,  than  the  people  of  Georgia  have  to  buy 
them  in  Africa,  I  want  him  to  do  it.  I  think  it  cannot  be  done.  If  it  is  "  Popular 
Sovereignty "  for  the  people  to  have  slaves  because  they  want  them,  it  is  Popular 
Sovereignty  for  them  to  buy  them  in  Africa,  because  they  desire  to  do  so. 

I  know  that  Douglas  has  recently  made  a  little  effort — not  seeming  to  notice  that 
he  had  a  different  theory — has  made  an  effort  to  get  rid  of  that  He  has  written 
a  letter,  addressed  to  somebody  I  believe  who  resides  in  Iowa,  declaring  his  opposi- 
tion to  the  repeal  of  the  laws  that  prohibit  the  African  slave-trade.  He  bases  his 
opposition  to  such  repeal  upon  the  ground  that  these  laws  are  themselves  one  of  the 
compromises  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Now  it  would  be  very  inter- 
esting to  see  Judge  Douglas  or  any  of  his  friends  turn  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  point  out  that  compromise,  to  show  where  there  is  any  compro- 
mise in  the  Constitution,  or  provision  in  the  Constitution,  express  or  implied,  by 
which  the  administrators  of  that  Constitution  are  under  any  obligation  to  repeal 
the  African  slave-trade.  I  know,  or  at  least  I  think  I  know,  that  the  framers  of 
that  Constitution  did  expect  that  the  African  slave-trade  would  be  abolished  at  the 
end  of  twenty  years,  to  which  time  their  prohibition  against  its  being  abolished  ex- 
tended. I  think  there  is  abundant  cotemporaneous  history  to  show  that  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  expected  it  to  be  abolished.  But  while  they  so  expected,  they 
gave  nothing  for  that  expectation,  and  they  put  no  provision  in  the  Constitution  re- 
quiring it  should  be  so  abolished.  The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  the 
States  shall  see  fit  to  admit  shall  not  be  prohibited,  but  a  certain  tax  might  be  levied 
upon  such  importation.  But  what  was  to  be  done  after  that  time  ?  The  Constitu- 
tion is  as  silent  about  that  as  it  is  silent,  personally,  about  myself.  There  is  abso- 
lutely nothing  in  it  about  that  subject — there  is  only  the  expectation  of  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  that  the  slave-trade  would  be  abolished  at  the  end  of  that  time, 
and  they  expected  it  would  be  abolished,  owing  to  public  sentiment,  before  that  time, 
and  they  put  that  provision  in,  in  order  that  it  should  not  be  abolished  before  that 
time,  for  reasons  which  I  suppose  they  thought  to  be  sound  ones,  but  which  I  will  not 
now  try  to  enumerate  before  you. 

But  while  they  expected  the  slave-trade  would  be  abolished  at  that  time,  they  ex- 
pected that  the  spread  of  slavery  into  the  new  Territories  should  also  be  restricted 


261 

It  is  as  easy  to  prove  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ex- 
pected that  slavery  should  be  prohibited  from  extending  into  the  new  Territories,  as 
it  is  to  prove  that  it  was  expected  that  the  slave-trade  should  be  abolished.  Both 
these  tilings  were  expected.  One  was  no  more  expected  than  the  other,  and  one  was 
no  more  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution  than  the  other.  There  was  nothing  said 
in  the  Constitution  in  regard  to  the  spread  of  slavery  into  the  Territory.  I  grant 
that,  but  there  was  something  very  important  said  about  it  by  the  same  generation 
of  men  in  the  adoption  of  the  old  Ordinance  of  '87,  through  the  influence  of  which 
you  here  in  Ohio,  our  neighbors  in  Indiana,  we  in  Illinois,  our  neighbors  in  Michigan 
and  Wisconsin  are  happy,  prosperous,  teeming  millions  of  free  men.  That  gen- 
eration of  men,  though  not  to  the  full  extent  members  of  the  Convention  that  framed 
the  Constitution,  were  to  some  extent  members  of  that  Convention,  holding  seats  at 
the  same  time  in  one  body  and  the  other,  so  that  if  there  was  any  compromise  on 
either  of  these  subjects,  the  strong  evidence  is  that  that  compromise  was  in  favor  of 
the  restriction  of  slavery  from  the  new  Territories. 

But  Douglas  says  that  he  is  unalterably  opposed  to  the  repeal  of  those  laws ; 
because,  in  his  view,  it  is  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution.  You  Kentuckians,  no 
doubt,  are  somewhat  offended  with  that !  You  ought  not  to  be  !  You  ought  to  be 
patient !  You  ought  to  know  that  if  he  said  less  than  that,  he  would  lose  the  power 
of  "lugging"  the  Northern  States  to  your  support  Really,  what  you  would  push 
him  to  do  would  take  from  him  his  entire  power  to  serve  you.  And  you  ought  to 
remember  how  long,  by  precedent,  Judge  Douglas  holds  himself  obliged  to  stick  by 
compromises.  You  ought  to  remember  that  by  the  time  you  yourselves  think  you 
are  ready  to  inaugurate  measures  for  the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade,  that 
sufficient  time  will  have  arrived,  by  precedent,  for  Judge  Douglas  to  break  through 
that  compromise.  He  says  now  nothing  more  strong  than  he  said  in  1849  when  he 
declared  in  favor  of  the  Missouri  Compromise — that  precisely  four  yours  and  a 
quarter  after  he  declared  that  compromise  to  be  a  sacred  thing,  which  "no  ruthless 
hand  would  ever  dare  to  touch,"  he,  himself,  brought  forward  the  measure,  ruthlessly 
to  destroy  it.  By  a  mere  calculation  of  time  it  will  only  be  four  years  more  until 
he  is  ready  to  take  back  his  profession  about  the  sacredness  of  the  Compromise 
abolishing  the  slave-trade.  Precisely  as  soon  as  you  are  ready  to  have  his  services 
in  that  direction,  by  fair  calculation,  you  may  be  sure  of  having  them. 

But  you  remember  and  set  down  to  Judge  Douglas's  debt,  or  discredit,  that  he, 
last  year,  said  the  people  of  Territories  can,  in  spite  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
exclude  your  slaves  from  those  Territories;  that  he  declared  by  "unfriendly 
legislation,"  the  extension  of  your  property  into  the  new  Territories  may  be 
cat  off  in  the  teeth  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

He  assumed  that  position  at  Freeport  on  the  27th  of  August,  1858.  He  said  that 
the  people  of  the  Territories  can  exclude  slavery,  in  so  many  words.  You  ought, 
however,  to  bear  in  rnind  that  he  has  never  said  it  since.  You  may  hunt  in  every 
speech  that  he  has  since  made,  and  he  has  never  used  that  expression  once.  He  has 
never  seemed  to  notice  that  he  is  stating  his  views  differently  from  what  he  did  then ; 
but,  by  some  sort  of  accident,  he  has  always  really  stated  it  differently.  He  has 
always  since  then  declared  that  "the  Constitution  does  not  carry  slavery  into  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States  beyond  the  power  of  the  people  legally  to  control 
it,  as  other  property."  Now,  there  is  a  difference  in  the  language  used  upon  that 
former  occasion  and  in  this  latter  day.  There  may  or  may  not  be  a  difference  in  the 
meaning,  but  it  is  worth  while  considering  whether  there  is  not  also  a  difference  in 
meaning. 

What  is  it  to  exclude  ?  Why,  it  is  to  drive  it  out.  It  is  in  some  way  to  put  it 
out  of  the  Territory.  It  is  to  force  it  across  the  line,  or  change  its  character,  so  that 
as  property  it  is  out  of  existence.  But  what  is  the  controlling  of  it  "as  other  prop- 
erty?" Is  controlling  it  as  other  property  the  same  thing  as  destroying  it,  or  driving  it 
away  ?  I  should  think  not.  I  should  think  the  controlling  of  it  as  other  property 
would  be  just  about  what  you  in  Kentucky  should  want  I  understand  the  control- 


262 

ling  of  property  means  the  controlling  of  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  owner  of  it.  While 
I  have  no  doubt  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  would  say  "God  speed" 
to  any  of  the  Territorial  Legislatures  that  should  thus  control  slave  property,  they 
would  sing  quite  a  different  tune,  if  by  the  pretense  of  controlling  it  they  were  to 
undertake  to  pass  laws  which  virtually  excluded  it,  and  that  upon  a  very  well  known 
principle  to  all  lawyers,  that  what  a  Legislature  cannot  directly  do,  it  cannot  do  by 
indirection ;  that  as  the  Legislature  has  not  the  power  to  drive  slaves  out,  they  have 
no  power  by  indirection,  by  tax,  or  by  imposing  burdens  in  any  way  on  that  property, 
to  effect  the  same  end,  and  that  any  attempt  to  do  so  would  be  held  by  the  Dred 
Scott  court  unconstitutional. 

Douglas  is  not  willing  to  stand  by  his  first  proposition  that  they  can  exclude  it, 
because  we  have  seen  that  that  proposition  amounts  to  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
the  naked  absurdity,  that  you  may  lawfully  drive  out  that  which  has  a  lawful  right 
to  remain.  He  admitted  at  first  that  the  slave  might  be  lawfully  taken  into  the  Ter- 
ritories under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  yet  asserted  that  he  might 
be  lawfully  driven  out.  That  being  the  proposition,  it  is  the  absurdity  I  have  stated. 
He  is  not  willing  to  stand  in  the  face  of  that  direct,  naked  and  impudent  absurdity ; 
he  has,  therefore,  modified  his  language  into  that  of  being  "controlled  as  other 
property." 

The  Kentuckians  don't  like  this  in  Douglas !  I  will  tell  you  where  it  will  go. 
He  now  swears  by  the  court.  He  was  once  a  leading  man  in  Illinois  to  break  down 
a  court,  because  it  had  made  a  decision  he  did  not  like.  But  he  now  not  only  swears 
by  the  court,  the  courts  having  got  to  working  for  you,  but  he  denounces  all  men 
that  do  not  swear  by  the  courts,  as  unpatriotic,  as  bad  citizens.  When  one  of  these 
acts  of  unfriendly  legislation  shall  impose  such  heavy  burdens  as  to,  in  effect,  destroy 
property  in  slaves  in  a  Territory  and  show  plainly  enough  that  there  can  be  no  mis- 
take in  the  purpose  of  the  Legislature  to  make  them  so  burdensome,  this  same 
Supreme  Court  will  decide  that  law  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  he  will  be  ready  to 
say  for  your  benefit,  "  I  swear  by  the  court ;  I  give  it  up ;"  and  wliile  that  is  going 
on  he  has  been  getting  all  his  men  to  swear  by  the  courts,  and  to  give  it  up  with  him. 
In  this  again  he  serves  you  faithfully,  and  as  I  say,  more  wisely  than  you  serve 
yourselves. 

Again  :  I  have  alluded  in  the  beginning  of  these  remarks  to  the  fact,  that  Judge 
Douglas  has  made  great  complaint  of  my  having  expressed  the  opinion  that  this 
Government  "cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free."  He  has  com- 
plained of  Seward  for  using  different  language,  and  declaring  that  there  is  an  "irre- 
pressible conflict"  between  the  principles  of  free  and  slave  labor.  [A  voice — "He 
says  it  is  not  original  with  Seward.  That  is  original  with  Lincoln."]  I  will  attend 
to  that  immediately,  sir.  Since  that  time,  Hickman  of  Pennsylvania  expressed  the 
same  sentiment.  He  has  never  denounced  Mr.  Hickman  :  why  ?  There  is  a  little 
chance,  notwithstanding  that  opinion  in  the  mouth  of  Hickman,  that  he  may  yet  be 
a  Douglas  man.  That  is  the  difference !  It  is  not  unpatriotic  to  hold  that  opinion, 
if  a  man  is  a  Douglas  man. 

But  neither  I  nor  Seward,  nor  Hickman,  is  entitled  to  the  enviable  or  unenviable 
distinction  of  having  first  expressed  that  idea.  That  same  idea  was  expressed  by 
(lie  Richmond  Enquirer  in  Virginia,  in  1856 ;  quite  two  years  before  it  was  expressed 
by  the  first  of  us.  And  while  Douglas  was  pluming  himself,  that  in  his  conflict  with 
my  humble  self^  last  year,  he  had  "squelched  out"  that  fatal  heresy,  as  he  delighted 
to  call  it,  and  had  suggested  that  if  he  only  had  had  a  chance  to  be  in  New  York 
and  meet  Seward  he  would  have  "squelched"  it  there  also,  it  never  occurred  to  him  to 
breathe  a  word  against  Pryor.  I  don't  think  that  you  can  discover  that  Douglas 
ever  talked  of  going  to  Virginia  to  "squelch"  out  that  idea  there.  No.  More  than 
that.  That  same  Roger  A.  Pryor  was  brought  to  Washington  City  and  made  the 
editor  of  the  par  excellence  Douglas  paper,  after  making  use  of  that  expression, 
which,  in  us,  is  so  unpatriotic  and  heretical.  From  all  this,  my  Kentucky  friends 
may  see  that  this  opinion  is  heretical  in  his  view  only  when  it  is  expressed  by  men 


263 

suspected  of  a  desire  that  the  country  shall  all  become  free,  and  not  when  expressed 
by  those  fairly  known  to  entertain  the  desire  that  the  whole  country  shall  become 
slave.  When  expressed  by  that  class  of  men,  it  is  in  nowise  offensive  to  him.  In  this 
again,  my  friends  of  Kentucky,  you  have  Judge  Douglas  with  you. 

There  is  another  reason  why  you  Southern  people  ought  to  noiiiinate  Douglas  at 
your  Convention  at  Charleston.  That  reason  is  the  wonderful  capacity  of  the  man ; 
the  power  he  has  of  doing  what  would  seem  to  be  impossible.  Let  me  call  your 
attention  to  one  of  these  apparently  impossible  things. 

Douglas  had  three  or  lour  very  distinguished  men  of  the  most  extreme  anti- 
slavery  views  of  any  men  in  the  Republican  party,  expressing  their  desire  for  his 
re-election  to  the  Senate  last  year.  That  would,  of  itself,  have  seemed  to  be  a  little 
wonderful,  but  that  wonder  is  heightened  when  we  see  that  Wise  of  Virginia,  a  man 
exactly  opposed  to  them,  a  man  who  believes  in  the  Divine  right  of  slavery,  was 
also  expressing  his  desire  that  Douglas  should  be  re-elected;  that  another  man  that 
may  be  said  to  be  kindred  to  Wise,  Mr.  Breckinridge,  the  Vice  President,  and  of 
your  own  State,  was  also  agreeing  with  the  anti-slavery  men  in  the  North,  that 
Douglas  ought  to  be  re-elected.  Still,  to  heighten  the  wonder,  a  Senator  from  Ken- 
tucky, who  I  have  always  loved  with  an  affection  as  tender  and  endearing  as  I  have 
*iver  loved  any  man ;  who  was  opposed  to  the  anti-slavery  men  for  reasons  which 
seemed  sufficient  to  him,  and  equally  opposed  to  Wise  and  Breckinridge,  was  writing 
letters  into  Illinois  to  secure  the  re-election  of  Douglas.  Now  that  all  these  conflict- 
ing elements  should  be  brought,  while  at  daggers'  points,  with  one  another,  to  sup- 
port him,  is  a  feat  that  is  worthy  for  you  to  note  and  consider.  It  is  quite  probable 
that  each  of  these  classes  of  men  thought,  by  the  re-election  of  Douglas,  their  pecu- 
liar views  would  gain  something ;  it  is  probable  that  the  anti-slavery  men  thought 
their  views  would  gain  somethiug;  that  Wise  and  Breckinridge  thought  so  too,  as 
regards  their  opinions;  that  Mr.  Crittenden  thought  that  his  views  would  gain  some- 
thing, although  he  was  opposed  to  both  these  other  men.  It  is  probable  that  each 
and  all  of  them  thought  that  they  were  using  Douglas,  and  it  is  yet  an  unsolved 
problem  whether  he  was  not  using  them  all.  If  he  was,  then  it  is  for  you  to 
consider  whether  that  power  to  perform  wonders,  is  one  for  you  lightly  to  throw 
away. 

There  is  one  other  thing  that  I  will  say  to  you  in  this  relation.  It  is  but  my 
opinion,  I  give  it  to  you  without  a  fee.  It  is  my  opinion  that  it  is  for  you  to  take 
him  or  be  defeated ;  and  that  if  you  do  take  him  you  may  be  beaten.  You  will 
surely  be  beaten  if  you  do  not  take  him.  We,  the  Republicans  and  others  forming 
the  opposition  of  the  country,  intend  to  "stand  by  our  guns,"  to  be  patient  and  firm, 
and  in  the  long  run  to  beat  you  whether  you  take  him  or  not.  We  know  that  before 
we  fairly  beat  you,  we  have  to  beat  you  both  together.  We  know  that  you  are  "all 
of  a  feather,"  and  that  we  have  to  beat  you  altogether,  and  we  expect  to  do  it.  We 
don't  intend  to  be  very  impatient  about  it.  We  mean  to  be  as  deliberate  and  calm 
about  it  as  it  is  possible  to  be,  but  as  firm  and  resolved  as  it  is  possible  for  men 
to  be.  When  we  do  as  we  say,  beat  you,  you  perhaps  want  to  know  what  we  will  do 
with  you. 

I  will  tell  you,  so  far  as  I  arn  authorized  to  speak  for  the  opposition,  what  we 
mean  to  do  with  you.  We  mean  to  treat  you,  as  near  as  we  possibly  can,  as 
Washington,  Jefferson  and  Madison  treated  you.  We  mean  to  leave  you  alone,  and 
in  no  way  to  interfere  with  your  institution  ;  to  abide  by  all  and  every  compromise 
of  the  Constitution,  and,  in  a  word,  coming  back  to  the  original  proposition,  to  treat 
you,  so  far  as  degenerated  men  (if  we  have  degenerated)  may,  according  to  the 
examples  of  those  noble  fathers — Washington,  Jefferson  and  Madison.  We  mean 
to  remember  that  you  are  as  good  as  we ;  that  there  is  no  difference  between  us 
other  than  the  difference  of  circumstances.  We  mean  to  recognize  and  bear  in 
mind  always  that  you  have  as  good  hearts  in  your  bosoms  as  other  people,  or  as  we 
slairc.  to  havo,  and  treat  you  accordingly.  Wo  mean  to  marry  your  girls  when  we 


264 

have  a  chance — the  white  ones  I  mean,  and  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  1 
once  did  have  a  chance  in  that  way. 

I  have  told  you  what  we  mean  to  do.  I  want  to  know,  now,  when  that  thing  takes 
place,  what  do  you  mean  to  do.  I  often  hear  it  intimated  that  you  mean  to  divide  the 
Union  whenever  a  Republican  or  any  thing  like  it,  is  elected  President  of  the  United 
States.  [A  voice — "  That  is  so."]  "  That  is  so,"  one  of  them  says ;  I  wonder  if  he 
is  a  Kentuckian  ?  [A  voice — "  lie  is  a  Douglas  man."]  Well,  then,  I  want  to  know 
what  you  are  going  to  do  with  your  half  of  it  ?  Are  you  going  to  split  the  Ohio  down 
through,  and  push  your  half  off  a  piece  ?  Or  are  you  going  to  keep  it  right  alongside 
of  us  outrageous  fellows?  Or  are  you  going  to  build  up  a  wall  some  way  between  your 
country  and  ours,  by  which  that  movable  property  of  yours  can't  come  over  here 
any  more,  to  the  danger  of  your  losing  it  ?  Do  you  think  you  can  better  your- 
selves on  that  subject,  by  leaving  us  here  under  no  obligation  whatever  to  return 
those  specimens  of  your  movable  property  that  come  hither  ?  You  have  divided  the 
Union  because  we  would  not  do  right  with  you,  as  you  think,  upon  that  subject ;  when 
we  cease  to  be  under  obligations  to  do  any  thing  for  you,  how  much  better  off  do  you 
think  you  will  be  ?  Will  you  make  war  upon  us  and  kill  us  all  ?  Why,  gentlemen, 
I  think  you  are  as  gallant  and  as  brave  men  as  live  ;  that  you  can  fight  as  bravely  in  a 
good  cause,  man  for  man,  as  any  other  people  living ;  that  you  have  shown  yourselves 
capable  of  this  upon  various  occasions  ;  but  man  for  man,  you  are  not  better  than  we 
are,  and  there  are  not  so  many  of  you  as  there  are  of  us.  You  will  never  make 
much  of  a  hand  at  whipping  us.  If  we  were  fewer  in  numbers  than  you,  I  think 
that  you  could  whip  us ;  if  we  were  equal  it  would  likely  be  a  drawn  battle  ;  but 
being  inferior  in  numbers,  you  will  make  nothing  by  attempting  to  master  us. 

But  perhaps  I  have  addressed  myself  as  long,  or  longer,  to  the  Kentuckians  than 
I  ought  to  have  done,  inasmuch  as  I  have  said  that  whatever  course  you  take  we  in- 
tend in  the  end  to  beat  you.  I  propose  to  address  a  few  remarks  to  our  friends,  by 
way  of  discussing  with  them  the  best  means  of  keeping  that  promise,  that  I  have  in 
good  faith  made. 

It  may  appear  a  little  episodical  for  me  to  mention  the  topic  of  which  I  shall  speak 
now.  It  is  a  favorable  proposition  of  Douglas's  that  the  interference  of  the  General 
Government,  through  the  Ordinance  of  '87,  or  through  any  other  act  of  the  General 
Government,  never  has  made  or  ever  can  make  a  Free  State ;  that  the  Ordinance 
of  '87  did  not  make  Free  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana  or  Illinois.  That  these  States  are 
free  upon  his  "  great  principle  "  of  Popular  Sovereignty,  because  the  people  of  those 
several  States  have  chosen  to  make  them  so.  At  Columbus,  and  probably  here,  he 
undertook  to  compliment  the  people  that  they  themselves  have  made  the  State  of 
Ohio  free,  and  that  the  Ordinance  of  '87  was  not  entitled  in  any  degree  to  divide  the 
honor  with  them.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio  did  make 
her  free  according  to  their  own  will  and  judgment,  but  let  the  facts  be  remembered. 

In  1802,  I  believe,  it  was  you  who  made  your  first  Constitution,  with  the  clause 
prohibiting  slavery,  and  you  did  it  I  suppose  very  nearly  unanimously ;  but  you  should 
bear  in  mind  that  you — speaking  of  you  as  one  people — that  you  did  so  unembarrassed 
by  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution  amongst  you  ;  that  you  made  it  a  Free  State, 
not  with  the  embarrassment  upon  you  of  already  having  among  you  many  slaves, 
"which  if  they  had  been  here,  and  you  had  sought  to  make  a  Free  State,  you  would 
not  know  what  to  do  with.  If  they  had  been  among  you,  embarrassing  difficulties, 
most  probably,  would  have  induced  you  to  tolerate  a  slave  Constitution  instead  of  a 
free  one,  as  indeed  these  very  difficulties  have  constrained  every  people  on  this  con- 
tinent who  have  adopted  slavery. 

Pray  what  was  it  that  made  you  free  ?  What  kept  you  free  ?  Did  you  not  find 
your  country  free  when  you  came  to  decide  that  Ohio  should  be  a  Free  State  ?  It 
is  important  to  inquire  by  what  reason  you  found  it  so  ?  Let  us  take  an  illustration 
between  the  States  of  Ohio  and  Kentucky.  Kentucky  is  separated  by  this  River  Ohio, 
not  a  mile  wide.  A  portion  of  Kentucky,  by  reason  of  the  course  of  the  Ohio,  is  fur- 
ther north  than  this  portion  of  Ohio,  in  which  we  now  stand.  Kentucky  is  entirely 


265 

covered  with  slavery — Ohio  is  entirely  free  from  it.  "What  made  that  difference? 
Was  it  climate  ?  No !  A  portion  of  Kentucky  was  further  north  than  this  portion 
of  Ohio.  Was  it  soil  ?  No !  There  is  nothing  in  the  soil  of  the  one  more  favorable 
to  slave  labor  than  the  other.  It  was  not  climate  or  soil  that  caused  one  side  of  the 
line  to  be  entirely  covered  with  slavery  and  the  other  side  free  of  it.  What  was  it? 
Study  over  it.  Tell  us,  if  you  can,  in  all  the  range  of  conjecture,  if  there  be  any 
thing  you  can  conceive  of  that  made  that  difference,  other  than  that  there  was  no  law 
of  any  soi\  keeping  it  out  of  Kentucky  ?  while  the  Ordinance  of  '87  kept  it  out  of 
Ohio.  If  there  is  any  other  reason  than  this,  I  confess  that  it  is  wholly  beyond  my 
power  to  conceive  of  it.  This,  then,  I  offer  to  combat  the  idea  that  that  ordinance 
has  never  made  any  State  free. 

I  don't  stop  at  this  illustration.  I  come  to  the  State  of  Indiana ;  and  what  I  have 
said  as  between  Kentucky  and  Ohio,  I  repeat  as  between  Indiana  and  Kentucky  ;  it 
is  equally  applicable.  One  additional  argument  is  applicable  also  to  Indiana.  In 
her  Territorial  condition  she  more  than  once  petitioned  Congress  to  abrogate  the  or- 
dinance entirely,  or  at  least  so  far  as  to  suspend  its  operation  for  a  time,  in  order  that 
they  should  exercise  the  "  Popular  Sovereignty  "  of  having  slaves  if  they  wanted 
them.  The  men  then  controlling  the  General  Government,  imitating  the  men  of  the 
Revolution,  refused  Indiana  that  privilege.  And  so  we  have  the  evidence  that  In- 
diana supposed  she  could  have  slaves,  if  it  were  not  for  that  ordinance  ;  that  she  be- 
sought Congress  to  put  that  barrier  out  of  the  way ;  that  Congress  refused  to  do  so, 
and  it  all  ended  at  last  in  Indiana  being  a  Free  State.  Tell  me  not  then  that  the 
Ordinance  of  '87  had  nothing  to  do  with  making  Indiana  a  free  state,  when  we  find 
some  men  chafing  against  and  only  restrained  by  that  barrier. 

Come  down  again  to  our  State  of  Illinois.  The  great  North-west  Territory,  in- 
cluding Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan  and  Wisconsin,  was  acquired  first,  I  believe, 
by  the  British  Government,  in  part  at  least,  from  the  French.  Before  the  estab- 
lishment of  our  independence,  it  becomes  a  part  of  Virginia ;  enabling  Virginia 
afterward  to  transfer  it  to  the  General  Government.  There  were  French  settlements 
in  what  is  now  Illinois,  and  at  the  same  time  there  were  French  settlements  in  what 
is  now  Missouri — in  the  tract  of  country  that  was  not  purchased  till  about  1803.  In 
these  French  settlements  negro  slavery  had  existed  for  many  years — perhaps  more 
than  a  hundred,  if  not  as  much  as  two  hundred  years — at  Kaskaskia,  in  Illinois,  and 
at  St.  Genevieve,  or  Cape  Girardeau,  perhaps,  in  Missouri.  The  number  of  slaves 
was  not  very  great,  but  there  was  about  the  same  number  in  each  place.  They  were 
there  when  we  acquired  the  Territory.  There  was  no  effort  made  to  break  up  the 
relation  of  master  and  slave,  and  even  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  not  so  enforced  as  to 
destroy  that  slavery  in  Illinois ;  nor  did  the  ordinance  apply  to  Missouri  at  all. 

What  I  want  to  ask  your  attention  to,  at  this  point,  is  that  Illinois  and  Missouri 
came  into  the  Union  about  the  same  time,  Illinois  in  the  latter  part  of  1818,  and,  Mis- 
souri, after  a  struggle,  I  believe  sometime  in  1820.  They  had  been  filling  up  with 
American  people  about  the  same  period  of  time ;  their  progress  enabling  them  to  come 
into  the  Union  about  the  same.  At  the  end  of  that  ten  years,  in  which  they  had  been 
so  preparing  (for  it  was  about  that  period  of  time),  the  number  of  slaves  in  Illinois 
had  actually  decreased ;  while  in  Missouri,  beginning  with  very  few,  at  the  end  of 
that  ten  years,  there  were  about  ten  thousand.  This  being  so,  and  it  being  remem- 
bered that  Missouri  and  Illinois  are,  to  a  certain  extent,  in  the  same  parallel  of  latr 
itude — that  the  northern  half  of  Missouri  and  the  southern  half  of  Illinois  are  in 
the  same  parallel  of  latitude — so  that  climate  would  have  the  same  effect  upon  oiie 
as  upon  the  other,  and  that  in  the  soil  there  is  no  material  difference  so  far  as  bears 
upon  the  question  of  slavery  being  settled  upon  one  or  the  other — there  being  none 
of  those  natural  causes  to  produce  a  difference  in  filling  them,  and  yet  there  being  a 
broad  difference  in  their  filling  up,  we  are  led  again  to  inquire  what  was  the  cause  of 
that  difference. 

It  is  most  natural  to  say  that  in  Missouri  there  was  no  law  to  keep  that  country 
from  filling  up  with  slaves,  while  in  Illinois  there  was  the  Ordinance  of  '87.  The 


266 

ordinance  being  there,  slavery  decreased  during  that  ten  years — the  ordinance  not 
being  in  the  other,  it  increased  from  a  few  to  ten  thousand.  Can  any  body  doubt  the 
reason  of  the  difference  ? 

I  think  all  these  facts  most  abundantly  prove  that  my  friend  Judge  Douglas's  prop- 
osition, that  the  Ordinance  of  '87,  or  the  national  restriction  of  slavery,  never  had  a 
tendency  to  make  a  Free  State,  is  a  fallacy — a  proposition  without  the  shadow  or 
substance  of  truth  about  it. 

Douglas  sometimes  says  that  all  the  States  (and  it  is  part  of  this  same  proposition 
I  have  been  discussing)  that  have  become  free,  have  become  so  upon  his  "  great  prin- 
ciple ;"  that  the  State  of  Illinois  itself  came  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State,  and  that 
the  people,  upon  the  "  great  principle  "  of  Popular  Sovereignty,  have  since  made  it  a 
Free  State.  Allow  me  but  a  little  while  to  state  to  you  what  facts  there  are  to 
justify  him  in  saying  that  Illinois  came  into  the  Union  as  a  Slave  State. 

I  have  mentioned  to  you  that  there  were  a  few  old  French  slaves  there.  They 
numbered,  I  think,  one, or  two  hundred.  Besides  that,  there  had  been  a  Territorial 
law  for  indenturing  black  persons.  Under  that  law,  in  violation  of  the  Ordinance  of 
'87,  but  without  any  enforcement  of  the  ordinance  to  overthrow  the  system,  there 
had  been  a  small  number  of  slaves  introduced  as  indentured  persons.  Owing  to  this 
the  clause  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery  was  slightly  modified.  Instead  of  running 
like  yours,  that  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  for  crime,  of  which 
the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  should  exist  in  the  State,  they  said  that 
neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  should  thereafter  be  introduced,  and  that 
the  children  of  indentured  servants  should  be  born  free ;  and  nothing  was  said  about 
the  few  old  French  slaves.  Out  of  this  fact,  that  the  clause  for  prohibiting  slavery 
was  modified  because  of  the  actual  .presence  of  it,  Douglas  asserts  again  and  again 
that  Illinois  came  into  the  Union  as  a  Slave  State.  How  far  the  facts  sustain  the 
conclusion  that  he  draws,  it  is  for  intelligent  and  impartial  men  to  decide.  I  leave 
it  with  you  with  these  remarks,  worthy  of  being  remembered,  that  that  little  thing, 
those  few  indentured  servants  being  there,  was  of  itself  sufficient  to  modify  a  Con- 
stitution made  by  a  people  ardently  desiring  to  have  a  free  Constitution ;  showing 
the  power  of  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution  of  slavery  to  prevent  any  people, 
however  anxious  to  make  a  Free  State,  from  making  it  perfectly  so. 

I  have  been  detaining  you  longer  perhaps  than  I  ought  to  do. 

I  am  in  some  doubt  whether  to  introduce  another  topic  upon  which  I  could  talk 
awhile.  [Cries  of  "  Go  on,"  and  "  Give  us  it."]  It  is  this  then  :  Douglas's  Popu- 
lar Sovereignty,  as  a  principle,  is  simply  this :  If  one  man  chooses  to  make  a  slave  of  an- 
other man,  neither  that  man  or  any  body  else  has  a  right  to  object.  Apply  it  to  Gov- 
ernment, as  he  seeks  to  apply  it,  and  it  is  this :  if,  in  a  new  Territory,  into  which  a 
few  people  are  beginning  to  enter  for  the  purpose  of  making  their  homes,  they  choose 
to  eitfcer  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  or  to  establish  it  there,  however  one  or 
the  Jther  may  affect  the  persons  to  be  enslaved,  or  the  infinitely  greater  number  of 
persons  who  are  afterward  to  inhabit  that  Territory,  or  the  other  members  of  the  fam- 
ily of  communities,  of  which  they  are  but  an  incipient  member,  or  the  general  head 
of  the  family  of  States  as  parent  of  all — however  their  action  may  affect  one  or  the 
other  of  these,  there  is  no  power  or  right  to  interfere.  That  is  Douglas's  Popular 
Sovereignty  applied.  Now  I  think  that  there  is  a  real  Popular  Sovereignty  in  the  world. 
I  think  a  definition  of  Popular  Sovereignty,  in  the  abstract,  would  be  about  this — 
that  each  man  shall  do  precisely  as  he  pleases  with  himself,  and  with  all  those  things 
which  exclusively  concern  him.  Applied  in  government,  this  principle  would  be, 
that  a  general  government  shall  do  all  those  things  which  pertain  to  it,  and  all  the 
local  governments  shall  do  precisely  as  they  please  in  respect  to  those  matters  which 
exclusively  concern  them. 

Douglas  looks  upon  slavery  as  so  insignificant  that  the  people  must  decide  that 
question  for  themselves,  and  yet  they  are  not  fit  to  decide  who  shall  be  their  Gover- 
nor, Judge  or  Secretary,  or  who  shall  be  any  of  their  officers.  These  are  vast  na- 
tional matters,  in  his  estimation,  but  the  little  matter  in  his  estimation  is  that  of  plant- 


267 

ing  slavery  there.     That  is  purely  of  local  interest,  which  nobody  should  be  allowed 
to  say  a  word  about. 

Labor  is  the  great  source  from  which  nearly  all,  if  not  all,  human  comforts  and 
necessities  are  drawn.  There  is  a  difference  in  opinion  about  the  elements  of  labor 
in  society.  Some  men  assume  that  there  is  a  necessary  connection  between  capital 
and  labor,  and  that  connection  draws  within  it  the  whole  of  the  labor  of  the  commu- 
nity. They  assume  that  nobody  works  unless  capital  excites  them  to  work.  They 
begin  next  to  consider  what  is  the  best  way.  They  say  there  are  but  two  ways ;  one 
is  to  hire  men  and  to  allure  them  to  labor  by  their  consent ;  the  other  is  to  buy  the 
men  and  drive  them  to  it,  and  that  is  slavery.  Having  assumed  that,  they  proceed 
to  discuss  the  question  of  whether  the  laborers  themselves  are  better  off  in  the  con- 
dition of  slaves  or  of  hired  laborers,  and  they  usually  decide  that  they  are  better  off 
is:  the  condition  of  slaves. 

In  the  first  place,  I  say  that  the  whole  thing  is  a  mistake.  That  there  is  a  certain 
relation  between  capital  and  labor,  I  admit.  That  it  does  exist,  and  rightfully  exists, 
I  think  is  true.  That  men  who  are  industrious,  and  sober,  and  honest  in  the  pursuit 
of  their  own  interests  should  after  a  while  accumulate  capital,  and  after  that  should 
be  allowed  to  enjoy  it  in  peace,  and  also  if  they  should  choose,  when  they  have  accumula- 
ted it,  to  use  it  to  save  themselves  from  actual  labor  and  hire  other  people  to  labor 
for  them,  is  right.  In  doing  so  they  do  not  wrong  the  man  they  employ,  for  they 
find  men  who  have  not  of  their  own  land  to  work  upon,  or  shops  to  work  in,  and  who 
are  benefited  by  working  for  others,  hired  laborers,  receiving  their  capital  for  it. 
Thus  a  few  men  that  own  capital,  hire  a  few  others,  and  these  establish  the  relation 
of  capital  and  labor  rightfully.  A  relation  of  which  I  make  no  complaint.  But  I 
insist  that  that  relation  after  all  does  not  embrace  more  than  one-eighth  of  the  labor 
of  the  country. 

[The  speaker  proceeded  to  argue  that  the  hired  laborer,  with  his  ability  to  become  an 
employer,  must  have  every  precedence  over  him  who  labors  under  the  inducement  of 
force.  He  continued :] 

I  have  taken  upon  myself  in  the  name  of  some  of  you  to  say,  that  we  expect  upon 
these  principles  to  ultimately  beat  them.  In  order  to  do  so,  I  think  we  want  and 
must  have  a  national  policy  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery,  that  acknowl- 
edges and  deals  with  that  institution  as  being  wrong.  Whoever  desires  the  preven- 
tion of  the  spread  of  slavery  and  the  nationalization  of  that  institution,  yields  all, 
when  he  yields  to  any  policy  that  either  recognizes  slavery  as  being  right,  or  as  being 
an  indifferent  thing.  Nothing  will  make  you  successful  but  setting  up  a  policy  which 
shall  treat  the  thing  as  being  wrong.  When  I  say  this,  I  do  not  mean  to  say 
that  this  General  Government  is  charged  with  the  duty  of  redressing  or  preventing  all 
the  wrongs  in  tlie  world ;  but  I  do  think  that  it  is  charged  with  preventing  and  redress- 
ing all  wrongs  which  are  wrongs  to  itself.  This  Government  is  expressly  charged 
with  the  duty  of  providing  for  the  general  welfare.  We  believe  that  the  spreading 
out  and  perpetuity  of  the  institution  of  slavery  impairs  the  general  welfare.  We 
believe — nay,  we  know,  that  that  is  the  only  thing  that  has  ever  threatened  the  per- 
petuity of  the  Union  itself.  The  only  thing  which  has  ever  menaced  the  destruction 
of  the  government  under  which  we  live,  is  this  very  thing.  To  repress  this  thing, 
we  think,  is  providing  for  the  general  welfare.  Our  friends  in  Kentucky  differ  from 
us.  We  need  not  make  our  argument  for  them,  but  we  who  think  it  is  wrong  in  all 
its  relations,  or  in  some  of  them  at  least,  must  decide  as  to  our  own  actions,  and  our 
own  course,  upon  our  own  judgment. 

1  say  that  we  must  not  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where 
it  exists,  because  the  Constitution  forbids  it,  and  the  general  welfare  does  not  require 
us  to  do  so.  We  must  not  withhold  an  efficient  Fugitive  Slave  law  because  the  Con 
stitution  requires  us,  as  I  understand  it,  not  to  withhold  such  a  law.  But  we  must 
prevent  the  outspreading  of  the  institution,  because  neither  the  Constitution  nor  gen- 
eral welfare  requires  us  to  extend  it.  We  must  prevent  the  revival  of  the  African 
slave-trade,  and  the  enacting  by  Congress  of  a  Territorial  slave  code.  We  must  pre- 


268 

vent  each  of  these  things  being  done  by  either  congresses  or  courts.  The  f  eople  of  these 
United  States  are  the  rightful  masters  of  both  congresses  and  courts,  not  to  over- 
throw the  Constitution,  but  to  overthrow  the  men  who  pervert  the  Constitution. 

To  do  these  things  we  must  employ  instrumentalities.  We  must  hold  conventions ; 
we  must  adopt  platforms,  if  we  conform  to  ordinary  custom ;  we  must  nominate  can- 
didates, and  we  must  carry  elections.  In  all  these  things,  I  think  that  we  ought  to 
keep  in  view  our  real  purpose,  and  in  none  do  any  thing  that  stands  adverse  to  our 
purpose.  If  we  shall  adopt  a  platform  that  fails  to  recognize  or  express  our  purpose, 
or  elect  a  man  that  declares  himself  inimical  to  our  purpose,  we  not  only  take  noth- 
ing by  our  success,  but  we  tacitly  admit  that  we  act  upon  no  other  principle  than  a  de- 
sir  o  to  have  "  the  loaves  and  fishes,"  by  which,  in  the  end,  our  apparent  success  is  really 
an  injury  to  us. 

I  know  that  this  is  very  desirable  with  me,  as  with  every  body  else,  that  all  the 
elements  of  the  Opposition  shall  unite  in  the  next  Presidential  election  and  in  all  fu- 
ture time.  I  am  anxious  that  that  should  be,  but  there  are  things  seriously  to  be 
considered  in  relation  to  that  matter.  If  the  terms  can  be  arranged,  I  am  in  favor 
of  the  Union.  But  suppose  we  shall  take  up  some  man  and  put  him  upon  one  end 
or  the  other  of  the  ticket,  who  declares  himself  against  us  in  regard  to  the  prevention 
of  the  spread  of  slavery — who  turns  up  his  nose  and  says  he  is  tired  of  hearing  any 
thing  more  about  it,  who  is  more  against  us  than  against  the  enemy,  what  will  be 
the  issue  ?  Why,  he  will  get  no  slave  States  after  all — he  has  tried  that  already  un- 
til being  beat  is  the  rule  for  him.  If  we  nominate  him  upon  that  ground,  he  will 
not  carry  a  slave  State,  and  not  only  so,  but  that  portion  of  our  men  who  are  high- 
strung  upon  the  principle  we  really  fight  for,  will  not  go  for  him,  and  he  won't  get 
a  single  electoral  vote  any  where,  except,  perhaps,  in  the  State  of  Maryland.  There 
is  no  use  in  saying  to  us  that  we  are  stubborn  and  obstinate,  because  we  won't  do 
some  such  thing  as  this.  We  cannot  do  it.  We  cannot  get  our  men  to  vote  it.  I 
speak  by  the  card,  that  we  cannot  give  the  State  of  Illinois  in  such  case  by  fifty  thou- 
sand. We  would  be  flatter  down  than  the  "  Negro  Democracy  "  themselves  have 
the  heart  to  wish  to  see  us. 

After  saying  this  much,  let  me  say  a  little  on  the  other  side.  There  are  plenty  of 
men  in  the  slave  States  that  are  altogether  good  enough  forme  to  be  either  President 
or  Vice  President,  provided  they  will  profess  their  sympathy  with  our  purpose,  and 
will  place  themselves  on  the  ground  that  our  men,  upon  principle,  can  vote  for  them. 
There  are  scores  of  them,  good  men  in  their  character  for  intelligence  and  talent  and 
integrity.  If  such  a  one  will  place  himself  upon  the  right  ground,  I  am  for  his  oc- 
cupying one  place  upon  the  next  Republican  or  Opposition  ticket.  I  will  heartily 
go  for  him.  But,  unless  he  does  so  place  himself,  I  think  it  a  matter  of  perfect  non- 
sense to  attempt  to  bring  about  a  union  upon  any  other  basis ;  that  if  a  union  be 
made,  the  elements  will  scatter  so  that  there  can  be  no  success  for  such  a  ticket,  nor 
any  thing  like  success.  The  good  old  maxims  of  the  Bible  are  applicable,  and  truly 
applicable,  to  human  affairs,  and  in  this,  as  in  other  things,  we  may  say  here  that  he 
who  is  not  for  us  is  against  us ;  he  who  gathereth  not  with  us  scattereth.  I  should 
be  glad  to  have  some  of  the  many  good,  and  able,  and  noble  men  of  the  South  to 
place  themselves  where  we  can  confer  upon  them  the  high  honor  of  an  election  upon 
one  or  the  other  end  of  our  ticket.  It  would  do  my  soul  good  to  do  that  thing.  It 
would  enable  us  to  teach  them  that,  inasmuch  as  we  select  one  of  their  own  number 
to  carry  out  our  principles,  we  are  free  from  the  charge  that  we  mean  more  than  we 
say. 

But,  my  friends,  I  have  detained  you  much  longer  than  I  expected  to  do.  I  believe 
I  may  do  myself  the  compliment  to  say  that  you  have  stayed  and  heard  me  with 
great  patience,  for  which  I  return  you  my  most  sincere  thanks. 


This  book  is  given  special  protection  for  the  reason  in- 
dicated below: 

Condition  Miniature  book 

Fine  binding  Original  binding  or  covers 

Format  UStraTcity 

Giftbook  Subject 


2M— 1-48— 37583 


H.E.H. 

DUPL. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOI9-URBANA 


30112047572901 


